(08-13-2014 05:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 05:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 03:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Is it being forgotten that the reason the BCS imploded was precisely because the major bowls were tired of being slotted with BCS buster teams (and in some cases Big East teams). That was what pushed the bowls to agree to the plus one, the fact that they could go back to their traditional tie ins. That was what they wanted.

Not sure where you are getting that. The BCS didn't "implode". The BCS basically got bigger and renamed itself.

Since 3 bowls must serve as locations for the semi-finals and NCG location---and double hosting has been eliminated---the CFP bowls wont have their traditional matchups any more often than they did in the past. Additionally, a G5 representative is now GUARANTEED to participate in a CFP Bowl EVERY year. Before, the BCS often had no G5 representative if no G5 team reached the required rankings. So if the idea was "go back to their traditional ties" or to avoid "being stuck" with BCS buster, then the current system is complete failure.

The Rose, Sugar, and Orange do avoid "being stuck" with G5 teams under the CFP format (unless a G5 team is chosen for a semifinal). That's why the Sugar brought in the Big 12 and the Orange made its SEC/Big Ten/ND deal.

That is my understanding as well. E.g. in 2017, when the Fiesta and Peach host the playoffs, the G5 representative will play in the Cotton Bowl, not the Orange, Sugar, or Rose Bowls, unless they are in the Playoff games.

The G5 rep will always be in a Access Bowl, not a Contract Bowl, unless, as you said, they make the playoffs and a Contract Bowl is hosting a playoff. And in that case they don't mind because the playoff game will by definition be a huge game with all kinds of viewership.

(08-13-2014 04:49 PM)westwolf Wrote:  The mid-majors are just not much in demand. Mediocre fan support, so they don't "travel".

There's no such thing as mid-majors, unless this post is about basketball.

(08-13-2014 02:29 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I recall that the possibility of an AAC contract bowl was explored, but there was insufficient financial interest to do so.

A better idea, suggested by someone else on this board previously, would be to take the $90 million payout to the G5 under the CFP and apply it to the Access Bowl slot plus two additional bowls that would be affiliated with the CFP. In addition to the $90 million, the TV money, ticket sales and sponsorship revenues could contribute to higher payouts for these bowls. That way each G5 conference could have its champion appear in a CFP affiliated bowl. Although these two bowls might be considered the "kid's table," they would still be higher profile than the affiliations that they have.

One angle that you are forgetting is that any undefeated G5 champion will be able to make an Access Bowl by ranking in the Top 12. The CFP ranking system takes care of excess quality of the G5.

The way I would recommend is adding two more access bowls (Holiday and Capital One) and in turn lowering the bar to Top 16 for a CFP game. That would cover the 1 loss G5 champions in addition to the undefeateds. It would also give the G5 schools access to 2 more historic bowl games. The difference then between the minor bowls of the P5 and G5 would about be negligible at that point.

(08-13-2014 04:49 PM)westwolf Wrote:  The mid-majors are just not much in demand. Mediocre fan support, so they don't "travel".

I agree... Those p5 bottom feeder schools are just ugly horrible.

(08-13-2014 07:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 04:49 PM)westwolf Wrote:  The mid-majors are just not much in demand. Mediocre fan support, so they don't "travel".

I agree... Those p5 bottom feeder schools are just ugly horrible.

So......this post is about football? Then why is westwolf using the term 'mid-major'? Which is a basketball term, I might add.

(08-13-2014 09:28 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 04:49 PM)westwolf Wrote:  The mid-majors are just not much in demand. Mediocre fan support, so they don't "travel".

I agree... Those p5 bottom feeder schools are just ugly horrible.

So......this post is about football? Then why is westwolf using the term 'mid-major'? Which is a basketball term, I might add.

You right, DCO... The "mid major" term was specifically/purposely directed to little basketball conferences or basketball only leagues.

(08-13-2014 06:57 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 02:29 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I recall that the possibility of an AAC contract bowl was explored, but there was insufficient financial interest to do so.

A better idea, suggested by someone else on this board previously, would be to take the $90 million payout to the G5 under the CFP and apply it to the Access Bowl slot plus two additional bowls that would be affiliated with the CFP. In addition to the $90 million, the TV money, ticket sales and sponsorship revenues could contribute to higher payouts for these bowls. That way each G5 conference could have its champion appear in a CFP affiliated bowl. Although these two bowls might be considered the "kid's table," they would still be higher profile than the affiliations that they have.

One angle that you are forgetting is that any undefeated G5 champion will be able to make an Access Bowl by ranking in the Top 12. The CFP ranking system takes care of excess quality of the G5.

The way I would recommend is adding two more access bowls (Holiday and Capital One) and in turn lowering the bar to Top 16 for a CFP game. That would cover the 1 loss G5 champions in addition to the undefeateds. It would also give the G5 schools access to 2 more historic bowl games. The difference then between the minor bowls of the P5 and G5 would about be negligible at that point.

First, any undefeated G5 champion ranked in the top 12 will not necessarily make an Access Bowl. Only one such team will, and it doesn't have to be in the top 12.

Second, Access Bowls can't simply be created out of thin air. They have to correspond to what TV is willing to pay for. During the CFP negotiations, the AAC's Aresco lobbied for a "7th Access Bowl". That idea died because TV indicated that six was all it was willing to pay for at that level.

(08-13-2014 06:57 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 02:29 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I recall that the possibility of an AAC contract bowl was explored, but there was insufficient financial interest to do so.

A better idea, suggested by someone else on this board previously, would be to take the $90 million payout to the G5 under the CFP and apply it to the Access Bowl slot plus two additional bowls that would be affiliated with the CFP. In addition to the $90 million, the TV money, ticket sales and sponsorship revenues could contribute to higher payouts for these bowls. That way each G5 conference could have its champion appear in a CFP affiliated bowl. Although these two bowls might be considered the "kid's table," they would still be higher profile than the affiliations that they have.

One angle that you are forgetting is that any undefeated G5 champion will be able to make an Access Bowl by ranking in the Top 12. The CFP ranking system takes care of excess quality of the G5.

The way I would recommend is adding two more access bowls (Holiday and Capital One) and in turn lowering the bar to Top 16 for a CFP game. That would cover the 1 loss G5 champions in addition to the undefeateds. It would also give the G5 schools access to 2 more historic bowl games. The difference then between the minor bowls of the P5 and G5 would about be negligible at that point.

Supposedly the AAC and the Sunbelt CFP proposal had set up that would have the selection committee placing the top 20 teams in the country is a series of 10 major bowl games. I think that would have produced a pretty interesting post season.

(08-13-2014 09:46 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 09:28 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 04:49 PM)westwolf Wrote:  The mid-majors are just not much in demand. Mediocre fan support, so they don't "travel".

I agree... Those p5 bottom feeder schools are just ugly horrible.

So......this post is about football? Then why is westwolf using the term 'mid-major'? Which is a basketball term, I might add.

You right, DCO... The "mid major" term was specifically/purposely directed to little basketball conferences or basketball only leagues.

The term "mid-major" is just arbitrary media shorthand, just like P5 and G5 are. It was coined by the media to describe those conferences that, while they were clearly not "major" conferences, were actually capable of more than just a single blockbuster upset in the NCAAT. They were conferences that were capable of producing an at-large entry into that tournament.

So, this was an acknowledgment that there were three tiers in D-I basketball. If you look at it that way, I think you could make a case that the AAC and MWC are "mid-major" in the sense that they are clearly below the P5 level, but also clearly ahead of the rest of the G5. Of course, if the blogosphere had its way, those two would give way to a single "best of the rest" conference, which would make it unnecessary to have a media created name to describe it - you could just use the conference name, and call the rest the G4.

(08-14-2014 05:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  So, this was an acknowledgment that there were three tiers in D-I basketball. If you look at it that way, I think you could make a case that the AAC and MWC are "mid-major" in the sense that they are clearly below the P5 level, but also clearly ahead of the rest of the G5.

Its a case that needs to be made based on several seasons of playing under the CFP system, as the "mid-major" concept in BBall emerged over a period of time. Indeed, in the first year of the CFP system, a lot of people are only going to become aware of the "Best of Go5 champions" race sometime this coming November, when there is a storyline to tell about a small set of contenders.