(10-18-2015 06:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I cant agree with this take. The P5 have for all intents and purposes completely blocked the G5 from the playoff by stacking the committee. The P5's CFP effectively relegated the G5 to a single big bowl, and allowed the P5 to monetize and pocket the full value of the P5 traditional bowls that used to be split among everyone as part of the BCS payout (Rose, Sugar, Orange). The only thing the P5 did that was a "gain" for the G5 was to guarantee the G5 would participate in a major access bowl every year---but they took away most any chance the G5 had to access the playoff or any other mid-tier bowls existing outside of the CFP. So basically, the champion of all but one G5 conference will be playing in Bobs Bowl vs the bottom qualifier from a P5 conference (if they are lucky) or some other random G5 (likely not even a G5 champion).

The G5 completely blew it by not siphoning off some CFP money to create a series of bowls that would serve as decent guaranteed post season destinations for each G5 champion. Instead, they rushed off and created a bunch of junk bowls to make sure that everyone who one 6 games could go one extra game. More low end junk bowls were not needed. There were plenty of them. What the G5 lacks is and is in dire need of is quality bowls. As a group, the G5 has access to ONE quality bowl. They need at least 5 slots (one each).

My idea was always to create 3 more good G5 bowls. One would pit the #2 G5 champ vs a P5 team #3-5 level section). The second would pit the #3 G5 champ against a P5 team (3-5th selection). The third would pit the two remaining G5 champs against one another. Then ever G5 champ has a decent place to go.

The bowls really have been a disaster for the G5 - money goes out to the bowl, but doesn't come back to the school. Bowl system only works for the P5. G5 would be much better putting their best team in a big 6 bowl as now, then taking the next 16 G5 teams and running their own playoff. Much more TV revenue than the current mishmash of meaningless bowl games.

In a lot of ways I see both winning. The P5 does lose some exclusivity but they can afford it. What the CFB scene gains is an additional mini playoff that can get more attention every year with a lot more teams involved. At the same time that game is also designated as being ever so slightly below the bigger bowls rather than being one of the biggest bowls like it was before (which means the P5 can feel superior). The G5 schools get to use this to bring attention to themselves.

(10-19-2015 09:27 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I agree. Last year, the focus was on the first year of the CFP with little pub given to the G5s. This year, they are getting more press. While the AAC may not like being lumped in, most major publications now have weekly polls/segments/articles about the access bowl race...didn't see that last year.

Boise State versus Arizona in the Fiesta Bowl brought in a lot of viewers that both schools normally do not get. The P5 do realizes that they should not exclude G5 totally out of the picture. They now do realized that some of the best football is concurring at the G5 level, and the talent are up there among with the P5 schools. Northern Illinois have an almost equal talents with Ohio State. Utah State and Boise State among the best of the PAC 12 and so forth.

(10-18-2015 09:59 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Need to go to computer ranking system to help the the playoff committee, it takes a lot of the human element and bias out of the equation. The committee should get a list from the computer of the top 8 teams each week and make their rankings from that list. IMHO. They really need to expand to 8 sooner than later. And have a guaranteed spot for a G5 as long as they are in the top 12 of the country.

The flaws are immense. This is what I would do to fix.

1) Move to an 8 team playoff with the Top 7 conference champions all with automatic bids. One at-large bid for the highest rated non-champion or independent team. This system makes it fairly prohibitive to make the playoff for independents because you could very well have an Alabama lose its conference championship game by a narrow margin but still be ranked in the Top 5. BYU would be particularly challenged.

This is better for the #1 and #2 teams because they get a relatively easy first round game in most years against a G5 school. Its good for the G5 program because they get a shot against the best over the #10 team in the Fiesta Bowl or something to completely prove once and for all if they belong.

2) Instead of a committee bring back the Harris Poll. Having 100 voters over 10 gives more of a data set. Start the poll the first week of the season so fans can track the national race all year.

This new system with the committee rolling out rankings in thin air 2/3rds through th season is confusing for the fans. They want to follow a poll but they don't know what the correct one is.

3) Bring the computers back and weigh them 1/3 of the playoff poll.

4) Distribute the playoff money to conferences on a 1 to 10 finish basis with a good minimum for the 10th place conference and escalators up from there.

In a year for example the AAC finishes the 5th place conference ahead of the ACC they deserve to be paid 5th out of 10 and not some scrap money dictated for the G5.

(10-19-2015 09:27 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I agree. Last year, the focus was on the first year of the CFP with little pub given to the G5s. This year, they are getting more press. While the AAC may not like being lumped in, most major publications now have weekly polls/segments/articles about the access bowl race...didn't see that last year.

Yes because there is a real race to the G5 autobid unlike the playoff where its 4 teams picked out of a hat for questionable reasons.

Like a presidential race, G5 candidates "drop out" as the season progresses and they rack up losses. There are favorites but there could be dark horse surprises.

Boise State was dismissed early with losses but came from behind to take the autobid down the stretch.

In it's own weird way, I actually follow several conferences more because of the one bid out there. It really reminds me of the national title race in the BCS era. With only the 1 (2 then) spots, there's just not much room for error, which means you know exactly what is at stake every game. That makes paying attention to more teams far more interesting. It's also something, that was somewhat lost in the move from 2 to 4 with CFP to me (and why I really, really don't ever want to see the CFP grow or auto-bids).

(10-20-2015 01:08 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-19-2015 09:27 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  I agree. Last year, the focus was on the first year of the CFP with little pub given to the G5s. This year, they are getting more press. While the AAC may not like being lumped in, most major publications now have weekly polls/segments/articles about the access bowl race...didn't see that last year.

Boise State versus Arizona in the Fiesta Bowl brought in a lot of viewers that both schools normally do not get. The P5 do realizes that they should not exclude G5 totally out of the picture. They now do realized that some of the best football is concurring at the G5 level, and the talent are up there among with the P5 schools. Northern Illinois have an almost equal talents with Ohio State. Utah State and Boise State among the best of the PAC 12 and so forth.

Boise St. vs. Arizona in the Fiesta Bowl brought in viewers curious to see how the selected G5 champ would perform. The P5 realizes the G5 provides value and they shouldn't completely exclude them from the post season format. They realize some of the best football is occurring within the G5 and it some cases the talent level at the programs is of the same quality as the P5. NIU has almost the same talent level as Ohio St. Utah St and Boise St have talent equivalent to the best of the PAC for example.