(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Bingo. And in order to do that there will only be a P4.

(08-26-2013 02:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Bingo. And in order to do that there will only be a P4.

Absolutely agree this is what will happen

I think the Big 12 only lasts until the end of its GOR and then gets cherry picked along with a small handful of AAC and MWC teams

NCAA allows semi finals and the winner of each pod participates in a conference tournament with the winner going to the Final 4

(08-26-2013 03:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 02:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Bingo. And in order to do that there will only be a P4.

Absolutely agree this is what will happen

I think the Big 12 only lasts until the end of its GOR and then gets cherry picked along with a small handful of AAC and MWC teams

NCAA allows semi finals and the winner of each pod participates in a conference tournament with the winner going to the Final 4

Im sure it was said in here somewhere but when does the Big 12 GOR expire?

(08-26-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

Or an 11-1 ranked Sun Belt champ.

(08-26-2013 03:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 03:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 02:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Bingo. And in order to do that there will only be a P4.

Absolutely agree this is what will happen

I think the Big 12 only lasts until the end of its GOR and then gets cherry picked along with a small handful of AAC and MWC teams

NCAA allows semi finals and the winner of each pod participates in a conference tournament with the winner going to the Final 4

Im sure it was said in here somewhere but when does the Big 12 GOR expire?

In approximately a dozen years, but it has look ins, and it can be dissolved with the movement of 8 teams. So the only real factor determining its viability is the desire of Texas and Oklahoma to make it work.

Seems kind of screwy. Where would they go, the Big 14? (Making it the Big 16). How do you even manage a conference of 16 teams? That's basically 2 conferences.

(08-26-2013 02:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Bingo. And in order to do that there will only be a P4.

Do you really think that Slive wouldn't push for an 8 team playoff which would likely contain another SEC team as a wildcard? Not only does the 5 champions plus 3 wildcards accommodate independents (read Notre Dame), but it also would allow for the power conferences to have their tournaments AND get more teams into the final playoff and have more chances at the title.

(08-26-2013 03:40 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 02:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Bingo. And in order to do that there will only be a P4.

Do you really think that Slive wouldn't push for an 8 team playoff which would likely contain another SEC team as a wildcard? Not only does the 5 champions plus 3 wildcards accommodate independents (read Notre Dame), but it also would allow for the power conferences to have their tournaments AND get more teams into the final playoff and have more chances at the title.

It just depends on how the playoff revenue is divided and whether or not some of that revenue is used for the semi-final and finals in conference play. The 4 commissioners will agree to equal splits as long as the money is more than currently projected for 2 teams in a 4 or 8 team playoff. Since 2 would likely be the optimum number for a conference to get into the 4 team playoff anything that equals and guarantees that amount would likely be agreed upon by all 4 commissioners in a heartbeat.

(08-26-2013 03:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 03:40 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 02:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Bingo. And in order to do that there will only be a P4.

Do you really think that Slive wouldn't push for an 8 team playoff which would likely contain another SEC team as a wildcard? Not only does the 5 champions plus 3 wildcards accommodate independents (read Notre Dame), but it also would allow for the power conferences to have their tournaments AND get more teams into the final playoff and have more chances at the title.

It just depends on how the playoff revenue is divided and whether or not some of that revenue is used for the semi-final and finals in conference play. The 4 commissioners will agree to equal splits as long as the money is more than currently projected for 2 teams in a 4 or 8 team playoff. Since 2 would likely be the optimum number for a conference to get into the 4 team playoff anything that equals and guarantees that amount would likely be agreed upon by all 4 commissioners in a heartbeat.

True enough, but I could see a scenario where, for example, LSU wins a Western pod of the SEC over aTm. LSU goes 12-0 prior to the conference semi-finals and aTm goes 11-1. That locks aTm out if only conference champions are allowed, but a 5+3 would allow them back into things even if there are semifinals, without losing any integrity of allowing in a conference tournament loser as a wildcard. I just think that many SEC fans would so relish the chance to have multiple teams participate against other conferences in the final tournament that there'd be a groundswell of support for it.

(08-26-2013 04:04 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 03:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 03:40 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 02:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 12:53 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I disagree with the 8 team playoff. I think they keep it at 4 and move to have conference semi finals. That effectively adds another round to the playoff without having to share any more money.

Bingo. And in order to do that there will only be a P4.

Do you really think that Slive wouldn't push for an 8 team playoff which would likely contain another SEC team as a wildcard? Not only does the 5 champions plus 3 wildcards accommodate independents (read Notre Dame), but it also would allow for the power conferences to have their tournaments AND get more teams into the final playoff and have more chances at the title.

It just depends on how the playoff revenue is divided and whether or not some of that revenue is used for the semi-final and finals in conference play. The 4 commissioners will agree to equal splits as long as the money is more than currently projected for 2 teams in a 4 or 8 team playoff. Since 2 would likely be the optimum number for a conference to get into the 4 team playoff anything that equals and guarantees that amount would likely be agreed upon by all 4 commissioners in a heartbeat.

True enough, but I could see a scenario where, for example, LSU wins a Western pod of the SEC over aTm. LSU goes 12-0 prior to the conference semi-finals and aTm goes 11-1. That locks aTm out if only conference champions are allowed, but a 5+3 would allow them back into things even if there are semifinals, without losing any integrity of allowing in a conference tournament loser as a wildcard. I just think that many SEC fans would so relish the chance to have multiple teams participate against other conferences in the final tournament that there'd be a groundswell of support for it.

I think that is the ticket that keeps the larger bowls around. Big 10 #2 verses SEC #2, SEC #3 Versus PAC #3 etc.

(08-26-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

There would be a BCS type ranking system where the top 3 teams that did not receive an auto bid would be selected. It would take a Boise type team to make it to the playoff so the P5 would still almost always take all 8 spots. No need to blow up college football because the P5 doesnt want to lose a playoff spot once every 5 years.

(08-26-2013 03:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

Or an 11-1 ranked Sun Belt champ.

Or an 11-1 ranked Sun Belt champ, while still giving an autobid to an 8-4 unranked ACC champ.

Which is why it should be the best 8, not 5+3.

(08-26-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

Because that will obviously happen just like it has in the BCS.

(08-27-2013 01:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

Because that will obviously happen just like it has in the BCS.

No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 01:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

Because that will obviously happen just like it has in the BCS.

No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

How many were thrilled about the blowouts in the other BCS games? Some of those were over by halftime. Besides, it required a ton of things to happen for that to occur. It was an anomaly. They're just overreacting.

(08-27-2013 10:49 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 01:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

Because that will obviously happen just like it has in the BCS.

No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

How many were thrilled about the blowouts in the other BCS games? Some of those were over by halftime. Besides, it required a ton of things to happen for that to occur. It was an anomaly. They're just overreacting.

On the field performance is irrelevant. As 10th stated, its about creating a closed post season. The BCS was an attempt at a closed system as well with the appearance of openness. The fact that NIU, Boise and TCU were selected in the first place is what annoys the P5.

(08-27-2013 11:34 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 10:49 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 01:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

Because that will obviously happen just like it has in the BCS.

No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

How many were thrilled about the blowouts in the other BCS games? Some of those were over by halftime. Besides, it required a ton of things to happen for that to occur. It was an anomaly. They're just overreacting.

On the field performance is irrelevant. As 10th stated, its about creating a closed post season. The BCS was an attempt at a closed system as well with the appearance of openness. The fact that NIU, Boise and TCU were selected in the first place is what annoys the P5.

Untrue. The first BCS ALWAYS had an entry level. Utah was the only one who met it but they did. Boise was first in under the new broader access rules.

NIU got in last year because the non-AQ had said "Wait" why should we have a team rated 13-16 sitting out when some AQ's in at 17 or worse. The AQ agreed that if an AQ champ was 17 or worse then a non-AQ champ could qualify at 13-16.

Not NIU's fault that everyone agreed to the rule assuming that none of the AQ would produce a champion worse than 16 or that there would be an AQ at 12 or better available if it happened.

(08-27-2013 11:34 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 10:49 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 01:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its about the playoff.

Its about having an 8 team playoff that features 5 autobids for the p5 champs and 3 wild cards but not having to give one to the 8-4 unranked Sun Belt Champ.

Because that will obviously happen just like it has in the BCS.

No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

How many were thrilled about the blowouts in the other BCS games? Some of those were over by halftime. Besides, it required a ton of things to happen for that to occur. It was an anomaly. They're just overreacting.

On the field performance is irrelevant. As 10th stated, its about creating a closed post season. The BCS was an attempt at a closed system as well with the appearance of openness. The fact that NIU, Boise and TCU were selected in the first place is what annoys the P5.

Yea that's really all I'm saying, and what I was questioning.

(08-27-2013 01:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 11:34 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 10:49 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 01:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Because that will obviously happen just like it has in the BCS.

No one outside of DeKalb, IL was over thrilled with last years Orange Bowl. I think that's the scenario that the P5 are trying to prevent from happening in the new CFP.

How many were thrilled about the blowouts in the other BCS games? Some of those were over by halftime. Besides, it required a ton of things to happen for that to occur. It was an anomaly. They're just overreacting.

On the field performance is irrelevant. As 10th stated, its about creating a closed post season. The BCS was an attempt at a closed system as well with the appearance of openness. The fact that NIU, Boise and TCU were selected in the first place is what annoys the P5.

Untrue. The first BCS ALWAYS had an entry level. Utah was the only one who met it but they did. Boise was first in under the new broader access rules.

NIU got in last year because the non-AQ had said "Wait" why should we have a team rated 13-16 sitting out when some AQ's in at 17 or worse. The AQ agreed that if an AQ champ was 17 or worse then a non-AQ champ could qualify at 13-16.

Not NIU's fault that everyone agreed to the rule assuming that none of the AQ would produce a champion worse than 16 or that there would be an AQ at 12 or better available if it happened.

Yes, the BCS always had stipulations for access. But I would contend that the BCS conferences created the entry hurdles in order to appease the non-BCS conferences and give the illusion of access. I don't think the BCS conferences actually expected non-AQ to actually cross the threshold.

(08-26-2013 09:58 AM)orangefan Wrote:  I've been trying to figure out what the purpose of creating a new division for the P5 plus a few friends, and conclude that there is no good reason for doing so.

The P5 wants to control the revenues generated by college football. But they already to this. The P5 are getting the lion's share of the College Football Playoff revenues, all of the revenue from the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls, the best of the remaining bowls, and TV contracts that dwarf anything that any of the G5 conferences are able to command. The P5 dominate bids to the NCAA tournament. What else could the P5 want?

I believe that if the G5, or a portion of the G5, are relegated to a lower division, their school and conferences specific revenue streams will be hurt. They won't be able to sell tickets or their TV rights for as much money because they will be second division. This won't help the P5, only hurt the G5. Further, it will reduce the value of games that the P5 does play against G5 schools, since they will not be as attractive as opponents.

My guess is that the the P5's real motivation is to ensure that they don't have to share money from a future playoff system that has yet to be created. In all other sports, qualification for the NCAA tournament is open to all conferences that are part of the division with a minimum number of schools. If FBS were to implement an NCAA tournament today, 10 conferences would qualify, and all would receive full financial shares for each school participating. Creating a new division limits the qualifiers to the P5 plus up to one or two others (MWC and American?).

I submit that this issue could be more fairly addressed by implementing more demanding requirements for automatic qualification to the FBS NCAA tournament - minimum attendance, minimum number of sports sponsorships, minimum number of scholarships funded, minimum dollar value of scholarships awarded - that exceed the ordinary threshholds imposed by the NCAA for its championships. Set automatic qualification at a level that only the P5 can meet, but reserve one slot for the G5 - hmm, just like the College Football Playoff.

Demoting the G5 serves no current purpose. It is bad for the sport. The P5 and G5 have a deal in place with the CFP for 12 years. Let it play out. If the playoffs are to be expanded in the future, deal with it then, just as they have in creating the CFP.

I think the confusion is this.. If you're a fan of the P5 you may think the G5 are taking some, albeit not a lot of money form your school. You may think the G5 is holding back revenues.

at the end of the day the problem the P5 have is not with the G5 it is with the FCS schools and the non FB schools outside of the Big East, the Big West and maybe the A10. Their problem is with the schools stopping "full cost of attendance" and for hte most part that is not the G5.

*IF* there is a split of Division 1 it will be down the middle. FBS + Big East + Big West + maybe A10 will be the new upper division.