I think the G5 made a critical error in long-term benefit thinking when they signed off on the last BCS and the new CFP.

The error was in leaving 4 teams in the cold.

The smart play would have been to tell the BCS/CFP that two more bowls had to be added to the mix. Take the BCS/CFP payout they are getting as hush money and made that the bowl payout.

For example let's say the bowls affiliated with the G5 were given the chance to bid. Two bowls would be selected and made part of the BCS/CFP. Over the life of the contract those two bowls would never see a P5 team, instead their pool would be the four G5 champions not selected for the playoff or the access bowl.

The two winning bowls would rebrand to include the BCS/CFP logo, they would be listed on the organization web site as BCS/CFP bowls.

So let's say the winning bidders were Las Vegas and Heart of Dallas. Each year they would alternate pick order. So Year 1 Las Vegas would have first selection of the four champions not selected for the access bowl and Heart of Dallas would select the two remaining champs. In Year 2 the order flips.

The two bowls would announce their payout as say $13 million per team. Twelve million coming from the BCS/CFP payout and $1 million being the bowl's bid to be branded a BCS/CFP bowl.

This would raise the profile of those two champion vs. champion games and erase a bit of the distinction (though not all) of the P5 and G5.

(06-24-2013 11:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think the G5 made a critical error in long-term benefit thinking when they signed off on the last BCS and the new CFP.

The error was in leaving 4 teams in the cold.

The smart play would have been to tell the BCS/CFP that two more bowls had to be added to the mix. Take the BCS/CFP payout they are getting as hush money and made that the bowl payout.

For example let's say the bowls affiliated with the G5 were given the chance to bid. Two bowls would be selected and made part of the BCS/CFP. Over the life of the contract those two bowls would never see a P5 team, instead their pool would be the four G5 champions not selected for the playoff or the access bowl.

The two winning bowls would rebrand to include the BCS/CFP logo, they would be listed on the organization web site as BCS/CFP bowls.

So let's say the winning bidders were Las Vegas and Heart of Dallas. Each year they would alternate pick order. So Year 1 Las Vegas would have first selection of the four champions not selected for the access bowl and Heart of Dallas would select the two remaining champs. In Year 2 the order flips.

The two bowls would announce their payout as say $13 million per team. Twelve million coming from the BCS/CFP payout and $1 million being the bowl's bid to be branded a BCS/CFP bowl.

This would raise the profile of those two champion vs. champion games and erase a bit of the distinction (though not all) of the P5 and G5.

Interesting thought. But it seems they get marginalized by the media when they don't play a P5 team-see TCU/Boise St. a few years back.

But with the system as it is, the G5 could still have those games and an additional modest payout, plus the CFP money. I would think that the way things have gone for the G5 that if those bowls would have been included in the CFP, then it wouldn't have changed the payout structure, but then they wouldn't have that additional payout. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I just don't think there would be any bump with what is proposed in the OP.

(06-24-2013 11:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think the G5 made a critical error in long-term benefit thinking when they signed off on the last BCS and the new CFP.

The error was in leaving 4 teams in the cold.

The smart play would have been to tell the BCS/CFP that two more bowls had to be added to the mix. Take the BCS/CFP payout they are getting as hush money and made that the bowl payout.

For example let's say the bowls affiliated with the G5 were given the chance to bid. Two bowls would be selected and made part of the BCS/CFP. Over the life of the contract those two bowls would never see a P5 team, instead their pool would be the four G5 champions not selected for the playoff or the access bowl.

The two winning bowls would rebrand to include the BCS/CFP logo, they would be listed on the organization web site as BCS/CFP bowls.

So let's say the winning bidders were Las Vegas and Heart of Dallas. Each year they would alternate pick order. So Year 1 Las Vegas would have first selection of the four champions not selected for the access bowl and Heart of Dallas would select the two remaining champs. In Year 2 the order flips.

The two bowls would announce their payout as say $13 million per team. Twelve million coming from the BCS/CFP payout and $1 million being the bowl's bid to be branded a BCS/CFP bowl.

This would raise the profile of those two champion vs. champion games and erase a bit of the distinction (though not all) of the P5 and G5.

The G5 might have tried to get more--but the deal they got wasn't that bad. I have a posted a proposal in a thread entitled "How To Fix The G5 Bowl Problem". It would create 3 bowls . Two would pit G5 champs vs 4/5 P5 selections. The third bowl would pit the 2 remaining G5 champs in a bowl with an elevated payout. The money would come from the G5 share of BCS money and the media rights to the bowls would be owned by the G5 like the Sugar Bowl media rights are owned by the SEC and Big12. That could still be done today.

The main issue is that if the market was already supposedly low or non-existent for a matchup between the top Group of Five champ and Big 12 #2 or Pac-12 #2 (which was explored as a 7th contract bowl), it's tough to see how bowl featuring even lower-ranked G5 teams playing each other would have brought anything financially to the CFP.

I think the most direct way for the G5 to get more equity of the new system is if they can get the NCAA to allow them to have an additional exempt game where the two top G5 champs would play each other for the G5's CFP bowl spot. The G5 conferences could then share in the revenue from that game, which I actually think would end up being worth more than attempting to put a CFP label on Heart of Dallas Bowl-type matchups.

The G5 had to get "access" and it had to sign off on the agreement. There could have been an argument for keeping the BE access and getting one more slot, but with the BE down to 3 programs, that was an argument it couldn't win.

The real mistake was the BE sitting at 8 schools for as long as it did...it screwed everyone down the line. Had the C7 left earlier and the new conference formed during the last BCS contract, we would be looking at a different scenario right now, IMO.

But as Aresco and others have pointed out...we have until 2019 to make a case, what the G5 must do is put a quality opponent in the Access Bowl and win as well as potentially get someone in that 4 team playoff and win. If that happens, all perception will change. As well if the Bowls that feature G5 members can stay afloat and prosper it may change the market. Changing perception is the key to changing attitudes toward watching TV or not.

I believe that adding more bowls was explored, including one with the AAC/Big East champ as host. The position of the P5, as I recall, was that an AAC/Big East tien in would have to be a Contract Bowls and would be bid out for its own TV contract like the Sugar, Rose and Orange, and so would provide no incremental CFP money to the participants. I think the same logic would have applied to your scenario. The one major difference would have been, though, that as Contract Bowls, these bowls would have been in the playoff rotation, potentially allowing the G5 to land two very good bowls as partners even if their payout were modest in years that they were not Semifinals.

In general, the G5 conferences are getting a very large increase in their CFP payout as compared to their BCS payout. I believe even the AAC/Big East is getting a modest increase assuming it is one of the top two G5 conferences regularly.

Arent all bowls technically "contract" bowls now?

IE instead of rotating through the BCS they contract with the leagues they want for long term agreements? And the payout is decided by what the bowl is willing to offer rather than a division of BCS money?

Is that correct?

I'm talking about taking the annual payment to the G5 and funneling it through as a bowl payment rather than hush money and using the BCS/CFP branding on the bowl.

There is far more value to having a CFP/BCS branded bowl even if it really isn't part of it the BCS/CFP and declaring it pays $12 million than playing your bowls and getting a check for $12 million to no be in the mix.

(06-24-2013 01:44 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Arent all bowls technically "contract" bowls now?

IE instead of rotating through the BCS they contract with the leagues they want for long term agreements? And the payout is decided by what the bowl is willing to offer rather than a division of BCS money?

Is that correct?

Yes. A contract needs to be in place on both sides of the bowl matchup to be certified.

The exception is the 3 access bowls (Cotton, Peach, Fiesta) without a contract but accept teams in the Top 12 at-large pool (and assuring a spot for the G5).

(06-24-2013 12:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The main issue is that if the market was already supposedly low or non-existent for a matchup between the top Group of Five champ and Big 12 #2 or Pac-12 #2 (which was explored as a 7th contract bowl), it's tough to see how bowl featuring even lower-ranked G5 teams playing each other would have brought anything financially to the CFP.

This is true. The 7th BCS bowl most likely would have been either the Holiday Bowl or the game in Houston had it been accepted. The TV dollars were not there and an easy way to make a 7 game rotation work was not there either.

Out of all the ideas I've seen presented to enhance the G5's stature I like the idea of a new set of international bowls that would take every G5 champion that doesn't make a CFP bowl along with Army and BYU with guaranteed slots. Both Army and BYU are high end traveling draws that can help balance out G5 schools that aren't.

With the MWC liking the idea of making a game in L.A. a high selection through this game into a 3 bowl rotation with Dubai and Ireland with the whole series of games broadcast on New Year's Eve through Fox OR CBS.

Dubai (1pm EST/9pm Dubai)
Ireland (4pm EST/9pm Ireland)
L.A. (7pm EST/4pm PST)

Dubai and Ireland would have to be night games to fit into a reasonable american timeslot. The games will ring in the New Year in both locations. The game in LA would just be a day game but prime time exposure of western schools on the East Coast.

Looking at Steele's power poll here is what the projected match ups would probably end up being.

Access Bowl: #22 Fresno State
Dubai (Army vs. #49 Louisiana)
Ireland (#41 Cincinnati vs. #26 Northern Illinois)
L.A. (#37 BYU vs. #35 Tulsa)

If Army doesn't have the required wins then take the next best available team and send them to Dubai (#38 Marshall).

BYU and Army rotate around the games every 3 years while the other schools have preferential placement by geography.

(06-24-2013 12:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The main issue is that if the market was already supposedly low or non-existent for a matchup between the top Group of Five champ and Big 12 #2 or Pac-12 #2 (which was explored as a 7th contract bowl), it's tough to see how bowl featuring even lower-ranked G5 teams playing each other would have brought anything financially to the CFP.

I think the most direct way for the G5 to get more equity of the new system is if they can get the NCAA to allow them to have an additional exempt game where the two top G5 champs would play each other for the G5's CFP bowl spot. The G5 conferences could then share in the revenue from that game, which I actually think would end up being worth more than attempting to put a CFP label on Heart of Dallas Bowl-type matchups.

There is no need for the Heart of Dallas to have any real value above a G5 vs. G5 match-up. It is simply a branding issue.

Rather than taking $12 million as a payment to not sue for anti-trust, the $12 per is added to the bowl payout and the game is branded CFP.

USA Today lists the Heart of Dallas as a CFP game paying $12 million+ per team.

Play-in was actually offered before the last four year BCS cycle and the MAC and Sun Belt had their pens out ready to sign. The WAC, CUSA and MWC said "no thanks". Worked out dandy for CUSA who never busted.

The solution has always been and will always be a 16 team playoff which is the right thing to do.

(06-24-2013 06:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 12:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The main issue is that if the market was already supposedly low or non-existent for a matchup between the top Group of Five champ and Big 12 #2 or Pac-12 #2 (which was explored as a 7th contract bowl), it's tough to see how bowl featuring even lower-ranked G5 teams playing each other would have brought anything financially to the CFP.

I think the most direct way for the G5 to get more equity of the new system is if they can get the NCAA to allow them to have an additional exempt game where the two top G5 champs would play each other for the G5's CFP bowl spot. The G5 conferences could then share in the revenue from that game, which I actually think would end up being worth more than attempting to put a CFP label on Heart of Dallas Bowl-type matchups.

There is no need for the Heart of Dallas to have any real value above a G5 vs. G5 match-up. It is simply a branding issue.

Rather than taking $12 million as a payment to not sue for anti-trust, the $12 per is added to the bowl payout and the game is branded CFP.

USA Today lists the Heart of Dallas as a CFP game paying $12 million+ per team.

Play-in was actually offered before the last four year BCS cycle and the MAC and Sun Belt had their pens out ready to sign. The WAC, CUSA and MWC said "no thanks". Worked out dandy for CUSA who never busted.

What you are missing here is that not only are the G5 leagues getting 12 million but they are also getting an additional 6 million for participating in the G5 Access Bowl. You could even make that total higher for that CFP game you are talking about.

The direction I think the CFP is going to more likely go in is an 8 game rotation adding the Holiday and Capital One. The reason for this is they'll want to protect the 2 loss P5 teams which will sometimes get left out of a 6 game rotation plus justify a $$$ increase with 2 more markets.

What it will mean for the G5 will probably be the status quo as there will likely be more realignment, taking the better positioned schools once again away from its ranks. The B12 may end up a depleted conference but it will retain a contract in the Sugar or Cotton Bowl.

If your ranking 16 teams instead of 12 and schools like UC, BYU and UConn have joined a contract conference that will open things up even more for the G5 in the future.

Part of the problem with making CFP bowls for G5 conferences is how watered down those leagues have become with regards to support. The AAC averages 30k, MWC 24k......CUSA/SBC/MAC are all in the 17-20k range. If even more schools are lost to realignment you'll have 5 very mid major conferences.

(06-24-2013 01:44 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Arent all bowls technically "contract" bowls now?

IE instead of rotating through the BCS they contract with the leagues they want for long term agreements? And the payout is decided by what the bowl is willing to offer rather than a division of BCS money?

Is that correct?

No. Rose, Orange and Sugar are Contract Bowls. When they are not semifinals, their funding is entirely based on their own contracts. Fiesta, Cotton and Peach are Access Bowls. Their funding is all from the CFP pool, including nonplayoff games. The proposal for a seventh game would have been as a Contract Bowl.