(07-17-2014 02:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think it should stay as is but you would be kidding yourself if you thought some 4-8 or 5-7 P5 teams weren't better than most 6-6 or 7-5 G5 teams.

Many of the those p5 teams are not superior Dixie.

This is essentially an issue of the CFB season. How many games (how many months?) make up a season? Should bowl season be essentially a certain 13th game or not? If yes (by accepting 4-8 power5 teams), then teams can schedule better and not be penalized. If no, then half of the Power 5 needs to "pick the low-hanging fruit" by scheduling D1aa schools and weak Group5 schools.

Back when the Big Ten was stronger, I remember how we'd have 6-7 teams in the top 25 by the end of September because Minnesota, Purdue, Wisconsin, Illinois would all sweep through their OOC schedule with 4-0 marks and it looked like they were going to be strong teams. (These days, Big Ten teams have frequent hiccups against Northern Iowa and Toledo and App. St. and the such...) But once Big Ten play started, those 4-0 teams started falling by the wayside...and many of them finished 6-6 or 7-5. The "narrative by the media" was then that the Big Ten is tough and these "good teams" couldn't win more than 2 or 3 games in the Big Ten (much like the SEC narrative today).

Reality was...Minnesota went 4-0 vs. cream puffs and 2-6 vs. solid teams...and they made a bowl.

Is it so bad if they go 2-0 vs. cream puffs and 3-7 vs. solid teams...and still make a bowl?

(07-17-2014 03:07 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 03:02 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  No G5 reps on selection committee. Their opinion that a 3-9 P5 is better than a 7-5 G5 gets them a bowl game. The P5 just can't tolerate an unstacked deck can they.

Use computers

That put teams like Boise, TCU, Utah and Hawaii in the BCS. That's why they got ride of the computers.

"Saban said teams should schedule harder games, then selection committee would rank best 70 teams for bowls, even w/out winning record"

Hey Nick

according to one website, Purdue had the #34 toughest schedule last year and was 1-11 and California had the #1 toughest schedule and was 1-11 also.

What a "Rose Bowl" that would be.........

Saban is all about changes that benefit Alabama and the SEC.

He'd gladly separate from the G5 if he had any say. He'll do great as an ESPN Mouthpiece.

(07-18-2014 01:55 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Saban is all about changes that benefit Alabama and the SEC.

He'd gladly separate from the G5 if he had any say. He'll do great as an ESPN Mouthpiece.

but separating from the G5 doesn't benefit Alabama and the SEC. He does have a say, he could stop scheduling them right now. He choses not to.

(07-17-2014 11:39 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  This is essentially an issue of the CFB season. How many games (how many months?) make up a season? Should bowl season be essentially a certain 13th game or not? If yes (by accepting 4-8 power5 teams), then teams can schedule better and not be penalized. If no, then half of the Power 5 needs to "pick the low-hanging fruit" by scheduling D1aa schools and weak Group5 schools.

Back when the Big Ten was stronger, I remember how we'd have 6-7 teams in the top 25 by the end of September because Minnesota, Purdue, Wisconsin, Illinois would all sweep through their OOC schedule with 4-0 marks and it looked like they were going to be strong teams. (These days, Big Ten teams have frequent hiccups against Northern Iowa and Toledo and App. St. and the such...) But once Big Ten play started, those 4-0 teams started falling by the wayside...and many of them finished 6-6 or 7-5. The "narrative by the media" was then that the Big Ten is tough and these "good teams" couldn't win more than 2 or 3 games in the Big Ten (much like the SEC narrative today).

Reality was...Minnesota went 4-0 vs. cream puffs and 2-6 vs. solid teams...and they made a bowl.

Is it so bad if they go 2-0 vs. cream puffs and 3-7 vs. solid teams...and still make a bowl?

How did Penn st do with it's cream puff??

(07-18-2014 01:13 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 03:07 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(07-17-2014 03:02 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  No G5 reps on selection committee. Their opinion that a 3-9 P5 is better than a 7-5 G5 gets them a bowl game. The P5 just can't tolerate an unstacked deck can they.

Use computers

That put teams like Boise, TCU, Utah and Hawaii in the BCS. That's why they got ride of the computers.

The computers helped them get into the BCS because the computers were rigged to do just that. The BCS required that computer formulas be changed before they would allow them to be used in the ranking. As an example, late in the season Northern Illinois was ranked #3 in that part of the Sagarin ranking used by the BCS. The alternate formula which Sagarin used previously, and which was a better predictor of future performance, had them ranked #47 that same week. The human polls, which use an eyeball test to a degree, but which primarily use number of losses to rank teams, had them around #18.

Folks, Saban's just reiterating (re-warning?) the non-P5 of college football about what is coming. Don't forget that not that long ago (circa 2012) Saban said:

Quote:"But I think, eventually in college football, we're going to have to get to where there's 60 or 70 teams in this Division I, whatever you want to call it. And these teams need to be playing each other." Saban said.

And an important player in the ranks of the non-P5 admits it as well (quote also circa 2012):

Quote:''The goal of the Sun Belt right now is to be the best of the quote, 'below the line conferences,''' (Sun Belt commissioner) Benson said in a recent interview. ''There's going to be five (conferences) above the line and five below the line. The Sun Belt's goal is going to be to compete with those other conferences.''

Saban rolling this out again. Fullerton rolling his "in the next 10 days" comment out (3 days ago). Something's brewing behind the scenes, something significant.

Saban should stick to coaching (and cheating at) the sport as-is, because his ideas for changing it all suck.

We should have 64 trophies that say "Big Dog". Give them out based on wealth, perception, polls, and media buzz.

Then have a less important trophy based on a playoff between all conference champions just for fun.

(07-18-2014 09:30 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We should have 64 trophies that say "Big Dog". Give them out based on wealth, perception, polls, and media buzz.

Then have a less important trophy based on a playoff between all conference champions just for fun.

LOL, yea, that's about it.

(07-17-2014 02:26 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  If Saban had several several 6-6 years the bama's would run him out on a rail after they removed his statue.

He would be run out of town after two 9-3 season and one 6-6 season.

(07-17-2014 02:09 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  @McMurphyESPN: Saban: “I don’t think you should have to win 6 games to go to a bowl game"
Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyESPN)
7/17/14, 1:41 PM
Saban said teams should schedule harder games, then selection committee would rank best 70 teams for bowls, even w/out winning record

Wonder who he would put on this 'selection committee'?

The SEC plays 47 of 56 OOC games vs non P5 competition and 47 of 56 OOC games at homes. If they do as Saban suggests that would result in the loss of ticket revenue to 19 home games, plus the loss of revenue for 19 additional road games. Not to mention the increased number of losses that come from playing on the road and playing programs with greater financial resources.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Saban is using corporate talking points to distract you from seeing that this lopsided and unfair system is one that the P5 wants and deliberately created.

(07-18-2014 08:16 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The SEC plays 47 of 56 OOC games vs non P5 competition and 47 of 56 OOC games at homes. If they do as Saban suggests that would result in the loss of ticket revenue to 19 home games, plus the loss of revenue for 19 additional road games. Not to mention the increased number of losses that come from playing on the road and playing programs with greater financial resources.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Saban is using corporate talking points to distract you from seeing that this lopsided and unfair system is one that the P5 wants and deliberately created.

Yep, what a hypocrite. If he was around in 2003 I wonder if he would have deleted the OOC game against NIU due to strength of schedule. Which they lost.

The conferences and schools want better matchups to get more TV dollars. The individual schools want to keep as many home games as possible. The fans want higher quality games. What’s the solution?

It’s two-fold. Force all Power 5 schools to schedule 11 of their 12 regular season games against Power 5 teams. Then, allow all Power 5 schools to begin their season with an exhibition game against a non-Power 5 of even FCS (Division I-AA).
The pre-season game will allow schools to get at least 7 home games every single season. The local economy will be pumped up. The tailgaters will enjoy the extra venue. And an extra game for TV won’t bother conference execs.

The one regular season game against a non-Power 5 foe will allow for another automatic home game. Big Ten teams never go to MAC schools anyway; nor do Pac-12 schools visit MWC teams. This isn’t really a change, except for the decrease in the number of games.

For the 11 regular season games against other Power 5 schools, conferences can decide how many games they want in conference, although the groundswell towards 9 is eventually going to pull in even the SEC and ACC. Why would they worry about the challenge of scheduling so many difficult out-of-conference home-and-home series when they can keep the product and the power in conference.

(* In fact, the “11 Power 5 opponent” mandate might help the ACC in its integration of Notre Dame. If they all play 9 ACC opponent, then playing their in-state rivals—UGA/GaTech, USC/Clemson, Florida/Florida St.—and Notre Dame on occasion wouldn’t be so hard to accomplish.)

Some years they’ll have 6 home, 5 away; other years, theoretically, they’ll have 5 home, 6 away.

But with a pre-season game and a non-Power 5 home game, they can meet the 7 home game minimum even in those years.

(07-19-2014 05:48 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  The conferences and schools want better matchups to get more TV dollars. The individual schools want to keep as many home games as possible. The fans want higher quality games. What’s the solution?

It’s two-fold. Force all Power 5 schools to schedule 11 of their 12 regular season games against Power 5 teams. Then, allow all Power 5 schools to begin their season with an exhibition game against a non-Power 5 of even FCS (Division I-AA).
The pre-season game will allow schools to get at least 7 home games every single season. The local economy will be pumped up. The tailgaters will enjoy the extra venue. And an extra game for TV won’t bother conference execs.

The one regular season game against a non-Power 5 foe will allow for another automatic home game. Big Ten teams never go to MAC schools anyway; nor do Pac-12 schools visit MWC teams. This isn’t really a change, except for the decrease in the number of games.

For the 11 regular season games against other Power 5 schools, conferences can decide how many games they want in conference, although the groundswell towards 9 is eventually going to pull in even the SEC and ACC. Why would they worry about the challenge of scheduling so many difficult out-of-conference home-and-home series when they can keep the product and the power in conference.

(* In fact, the “11 Power 5 opponent” mandate might help the ACC in its integration of Notre Dame. If they all play 9 ACC opponent, then playing their in-state rivals—UGA/GaTech, USC/Clemson, Florida/Florida St.—and Notre Dame on occasion wouldn’t be so hard to accomplish.)

Some years they’ll have 6 home, 5 away; other years, theoretically, they’ll have 5 home, 6 away.

But with a pre-season game and a non-Power 5 home game, they can meet the 7 home game minimum even in those years.

the P5 has spent 20 years rigging the system to give them ever advantage possible, there's no way they're going to forfeit all that. besides, who is this invisible entity you speak of that would force the P5 to do anything? They've been running the show for decades.

I'll say it again- the SEC plays 56 OOC games and 56 Conference games in 2014. 47 of 56 OOC games are vs non P5 teams. That's 44% of their entire schedule. If you replace those 47 games with other programs that have the financial means to compete with the SEC then the SEC is going to lose A LOT more games. Losing teams don't draw high TV ratings.

Playing 47 of 56 OOC games vs non P5 programs also allows the SEC to play 47 of 56 OOC games at home. If they go to an all P5 schedule it will be split, 28 home, 28 away. That's 19 fewer home games. How much revenue does 19 SEC home games generate? How will that help the local economies? Plus, you now have to add on the expense of traveling to 19 more road games.

The ratios for the OOC schedules of the other P5 conferences are similar to the SEC.

If you really want better matchups and better TV revenue here's a suggestion- stop allowing half of the league to hoard all the money while keeping the other half too poor to compete. With the new playoff agreement between ESPN and the FBS (that's all 10 conferences) over the 12 year period of the contract from 2014-2026 the 5 P5 conferences will receive $900 million MORE than the 5 G5 conferences. I'll say that again- over the next 12 years the revenue designated for all of FBS will be split so the P5 receives an additional $900 MILLION DOLLARS.

Give the G5 the $450m they serve and suddenly you'll have many more competitive and exciting teams to features on TV. But that's not what the chosen few in the P5 really want, is it?

It is high time that we G5 (or borderline G5) accept some of the blame for our problems. When the CFA broke up the G5 didn't band together and come up with a new one to jointly market our TV and increase our bargaining power. We have accepted the bowl system which is stacked in favor of traditional teams, and paid money to be placed in them, only recently starting our own bowl games. We didn't take a hard line on teams moving up to IA having to have an acceptable stadium (Idaho) or having to at least be successful at IAA (Buffalo). Pretty much all we've ever done in complain and lobby for bowl scraps. We haven't tried to develop something together.

So, before we go bashing the P5 for ruining college football, we should first take a look at what we should have done. Maybe we can take some of these steps now.

Perhaps the first thing we need is a G5 super-conference. The super-conference would be a conference of conferences and independents, have a commisoiner, and negotiate a group TV deal. The Super-conference needs to have the power to kick teams out that do not meet the qualifications for stadium size, wins in FCS if moving up, or attendance. These teams would be forced to upgrade or not be able to take advantage of the negotiating leverage in TV contracts and such, though they would remain FBS. The superconference would also have a "legal and lobbying team" capable of putting more pressure on the legal front than the scattered efforts currently employed.

Finally, the superconference would have more say in the post-season. It would still send the top rated champ to a qualifier bowl, but it would institute a 16 team playoff among the remaining teams, and send the rest out to lower-level bowls. The playoff would be a money maker by simply following the model laid out by the FCS. By offering something different, unique, and "lose and you're out" it would have a TV apeal similar to reality TV - just as the current FCS playoff offers much better TV value than regular season FCS games.

Either we as the G5 have market appeal or we don't. If we don't, there isn't much sense in playing the game the way it is played today, and we should drop to the non-scholarship level. If there is value (and I believe there is a fair amount) we need to be working together to maximize revenue and opportuinity.