(12-24-2016 07:52 PM)banker Wrote:  But that has no relevance to this discussion since it's not like G5s are becoming P5 teams. The point is that there are very few G5 teams that could go .500 in a P5 conference.

Heck, if I was UK or Indiana and it went to a 16 team playoff, I would consider seeking admission to the Belt or CUSA so I would have a shot at making the playoffs every year. Sorry, but the G5 champs don't deserve auto bids. If you want something "fair" then you need to do away with all current conferences and then reallocate all FBS teams to 16 eight team conferences, equally distributing the powerhouse teams, the good teams, the bad teams and the crap teams in geographic regions. If you did that, then over time the top teams may change, but I doubt it. My guess is no more than two current G5 teams would make the playoffs in the first 5-10 years.

How else will a G5 team play a P5 team week in week out without being in a P5 conference. The conversation was based off a hypothetical...hypothetically, if a G5 team had a one-off chance of playing a P5 schedule for one season with their current recruits, then sure, wins would be very tough to come by. However, and which has been proven with TCU, UTAH, and Louisville, give a G5 team the promotion, eventually, they can recruit to the level of that respective conference to compete...week in and week out.

(12-24-2016 06:52 PM)DNEagle Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 06:14 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 05:54 PM)DNEagle Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 04:01 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  I frankly can't see 5 of the 16 teams (basically 1/3 of the playoff teams) being G5. I know I'll get flack from some of you for saying this, but those five G5s listed wouldn't have anywhere near the record they have if they played P5 competition weekly as P5's do. One or two games against a P5 per year proves ****. I can maybe see two representatives from the G5. There's a reason Boise State is really the only G5 in the entire nation that has enjoyed sustained success against relevant P5 competition (and by relevant, I don't mean the Vandys of the world).

I don't really understand how this could be a valid point...talking heads make this point and their is no continuous validation when they make it. As if the idea that G5's recruiting won't improve to the level to compete week in and week out over time.

You'll have to elaborate because I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.

A G5 team that plays a P5 team weekly (as to say a G5 team that's elevated to a P5 conference) will eventually be able to recruit to the level of that P5 conference to compete week in and week out.

Just wanted to hear it out of the horse's mouth, as I thought that's what you meant. My rebuttal...

If they're elevated to P5 and do play P5 competition weekly, and maintain a good enough record to warrant being rewarded with a spot in a fictional 16-team playoff system, more power to them. But understand that as a P5, they'd also then risk losing that spot to a G5 conference champion, benefitting from playing a much weaker schedule.

Would a G5 being admitted into a P5 allow them to recruit better and elevate to P5 status? Definitely! The key point you're missing though is that they'd elevate to that status, meaning they're not there yet as a current G5 and aren't justified in being included in a 16-team playoff format which, in my opinion, should be reserved for the truly elite 16 teams.

The exception to that rule would be a team like Boise State, who at 15-10 vs. P5 competition in the last ten years - solid P5, not just the bottom feeders - have a history of proving they belong in the discussion.

I understand some of you guys think it would be cool and exciting to make this like basketball's March Madness, where the little guy is given a chance. I'm just putting my bias against P5 for their money, facilities, and exposure they already get, aside here, and looking at it objectively in terms of who really has the best teams out there.

(12-24-2016 07:52 PM)banker Wrote:  But that has no relevance to this discussion since it's not like G5s are becoming P5 teams. The point is that there are very few G5 teams that could go .500 in a P5 conference.

Heck, if I was UK or Indiana and it went to a 16 team playoff, I would consider seeking admission to the Belt or CUSA so I would have a shot at making the playoffs every year. Sorry, but the G5 champs don't deserve auto bids. If you want something "fair" then you need to do away with all current conferences and then reallocate all FBS teams to 16 eight team conferences, equally distributing the powerhouse teams, the good teams, the bad teams and the crap teams in geographic regions. If you did that, then over time the top teams may change, but I doubt it. My guess is no more than two current G5 teams would make the playoffs in the first 5-10 years.

Did you watch the SEC this year. 70 % of that league couldn't win the 1-aa championship this year.

(12-24-2016 07:52 PM)banker Wrote:  Heck, if I was UK or Indiana and it went to a 16 team playoff, I would consider seeking admission to the Belt or CUSA so I would have a shot at making the playoffs every year.

Just as a G5 nember would grow into a P5 conference, what makes you think Kentucky or Indiana wouldn't fall off entirely in a G5 conference?

How much of their money comes from television deals they'd no longer be a part of? What would Commonwealth stadium look like for a conference game against ULM? Have fun watching UK basketball in the Sun Belt...

We give all conferences auto bids in basketball, why not football? 16(10/6) or 24(10/14) would be closest to the ratio of March Madness(32/36).

Just go to an 8 team playoff with an automatic admission for all P5 conference Champs, the 2 next highest ranked teams and the highest ranked G5 team.

(12-24-2016 09:04 PM)LRP Wrote:  Just go to an 8 team playoff with an automatic admission for all P5 conference Champs, the 2 next highest ranked teams and the highest ranked G5 team.

That would be a start.

It will probably eventually go to 8, but it will never ever go to 16.

It's cool that everyone likes to point out Louisville, Utah and TCU as proof that, if given the opportunity and resources, a G5 can compete. To a certain extent, that's true, but it is really glossing things over. The main thing it ignores is that those three teams, the ones held out as examples, have averaged almost 3 less wins per season than in the years preceding their move up. Also, out of those three teams and their 13 combined seasons at the P5 level, they have no out right conference championships and have not appeared in the playoff.

(12-24-2016 09:24 PM)N2theBlue Wrote:  It will probably eventually go to 8, but it will never ever go to 16.

And it will never include anyone from the G5 either.

Pretty much. A Ohio St with 4 losses will get a wildcard before a 1 or 2 loss g5 every time.

Posted from mobile device. Hopefully it's coherent.

If it goes to 8, it will include the top G5 team.

(12-24-2016 10:30 PM)Artifice Wrote:  If it goes to 8, it will include the top G5 team.

On a provisional basis,but I agree.

(12-24-2016 04:01 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  I frankly can't see 5 of the 16 teams (basically 1/3 of the playoff teams) being G5. I know I'll get flack from some of you for saying this, but those five G5s listed wouldn't have anywhere near the record they have if they played P5 competition weekly as P5's do. One or two games against a P5 per year proves ****. I can maybe see two representatives from the G5. There's a reason Boise State is really the only G5 in the entire nation that has enjoyed sustained success against relevant P5 competition (and by relevant, I don't mean the Vandys of the world).

You are making the assumption that recruiting wouldn't change. If this format was in place, a lot of highly talented players would opt for easier paths to playoffs. Why go to miss st, Purdue, Iowa st, Wash St, NC State and have to compete with top tier in those leagues or play for one of the G 5 schools. Over time the conferences would balance out. 16 teams creates greater limit than field of 68 in march madness. Also when these comparisons come up, folks act like they would have to play top 25 every week if in P5. There are only about 15 teams in the hunt for national championships very year any way. Basically the same teams. Once the top 32 realize they don't need everyone else to make money, a lot of the "haves" will quickly learn there place. Alabama brings in the money to SEC not Ole Miss, Ohio St not Purdue, etc.

(12-24-2016 01:33 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  This is the only way to make it fair for everyone and keep it fun.

...he said, as if anyone making the decisions in college sports gives a flying rat's behind about "fair," "fun," or anything else not preceded by a dollar sign.

(12-24-2016 03:11 PM)TopperMan59 Wrote:  Unless I am missing something, you left Wyoming out of the seedings.

I am very much a proponent of a 16 team playoff system pretty much as you have laid this out. 10 conference champs and 6 at-large. This would take 15 bowl games to play out to a National Championship Game. Only difference is, I think you could still have the other 25 bowl games slotted for winning teams. The bowl system could easily be utilized for a playoff system. The money made would be incredible. Imagine a G5 school making a run. Fan interest would be off the charts.

As to the seeding, I would have App State and Wyoming below WKU.

I am not at all optimistic that the P5 gang will ever allow their toys to be played with by the G5 kids. They intend to control their "money printing" world at any and all costs. The only way something like the above happening is for the courts to get involved, and that is not likely.

Merry Christmas to you all, and wishes for a very happy and healthy 2017.

No to using bowl games for the playoffs. Higher seeded teams deserve the gate for hosting playoff games, not some jackboot bowl committee.

Need WMU to have a strong showing to bolster our case for when it goes to 8

Be great except one thing... The SEC would never allow it! They control college football. Under the scenario above they would only have one team in. I know it's just a scenario but they wouldn't take the chance. I think the G5 needs to break away from the P5 and have our own national championship. I also think we shouldn't play them at all during the regular season. Let them take their ball home and choke on it. Make our conferences more regional for school expense and fan travel and hold an 8 team playoff, 5 champs and 3 at-large.

(12-24-2016 11:27 PM)LATech95 Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 04:01 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  I frankly can't see 5 of the 16 teams (basically 1/3 of the playoff teams) being G5. I know I'll get flack from some of you for saying this, but those five G5s listed wouldn't have anywhere near the record they have if they played P5 competition weekly as P5's do. One or two games against a P5 per year proves ****. I can maybe see two representatives from the G5. There's a reason Boise State is really the only G5 in the entire nation that has enjoyed sustained success against relevant P5 competition (and by relevant, I don't mean the Vandys of the world).

You are making the assumption that recruiting wouldn't change. If this format was in place, a lot of highly talented players would opt for easier paths to playoffs. Why go to miss st, Purdue, Iowa st, Wash St, NC State and have to compete with top tier in those leagues or play for one of the G 5 schools. Over time the conferences would balance out. 16 teams creates greater limit than field of 68 in march madness. Also when these comparisons come up, folks act like they would have to play top 25 every week if in P5. There are only about 15 teams in the hunt for national championships very year any way. Basically the same teams. Once the top 32 realize they don't need everyone else to make money, a lot of the "haves" will quickly learn there place. Alabama brings in the money to SEC not Ole Miss, Ohio St not Purdue, etc.

With that one highlighted sentence, you actually made my argument. Easier path to those playoffs is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said it shouldn't be done. It should go to the teams who truly earned the right to play in those playoffs, not the teams who play FIU, FAU, UTEP, UTSA on a weekly basis.

And I never implied that P5's play top 25 every week, but even when they play the bottom feeder Vandys, they're playing teams that G5's put on a pedestal as some sort of magical SEC win when we beat 'em. WKU, as good as they are, have gone 1-1 against a Vandy team that's 5-11 in the SEC over the last two years, beating them 14-12 last year, and losing 31-30 this year. And like a good G5, we proudly add that to our tiny list of wins over P5s as if it's some sort of accomplishment to beat a team that P5s use as a punching bag year-in and year-out.

And you said they'll realize they don't need everyone else to make money? Not sure what you're implying there, but most schools would make a lot more by being in a conference like the SEC with their yearly guaranteed $37 Million/per school payout than they would by the fleeting chance that they'd make it into one of the four bowl games that pay $18 Million per team, or the championship game that pays $22 Million per team. In college football, it's like being in high school all over again, as it's all about whom you hang with; popular crowd or the also-rans.

I just wish the conferences had equal resources, revenue and exposure so there would be an even playing field. As it is, the advantages handed to the P5 conferences, especially the Big10 and SEC make it very unfair. I don't think it's right to penalize teams for who they play in conference because it's not like a school can join a p5 if they want to. They've locked us out and then penalize us for it. That's jacked up. Giving all conference champs access to the playoff wouldn't even solve everything but it would be a step in the right direction.

(12-24-2016 09:45 PM)banker Wrote:  It's cool that everyone likes to point out Louisville, Utah and TCU as proof that, if given the opportunity and resources, a G5 can compete. To a certain extent, that's true, but it is really glossing things over. The main thing it ignores is that those three teams, the ones held out as examples, have averaged almost 3 less wins per season than in the years preceding their move up. Also, out of those three teams and their 13 combined seasons at the P5 level, they have no out right conference championships and have not appeared in the playoff.

It's cool that you think you are making a point, while glossing over the fact that those three schools had been G5 for decades and you're making comparisons to their final three years of G5 football to their first few years of P5.

In the case of Utah, they joined the Pac 12 in 2011, at the time they had six ten win seasons, three of them were those preceding three years to which they are referring. Oh by the way, they also beat Bama in the Sugar Bowl in that period.

In the case of TCU, they joined the Big XII in 2012, at the time they had twelve ten win seasons(three of which were pre WWI) and three of their six modern era ten win seasons were the preceding three years to which you were referring, oh by the way, they went to a Fiesta Bowl and won a Rose Bowl in that time.

In the caae of Louisville, they joined the ACC in 2014, at the time they had six ten win seasons, two of them were in the three preceding seasons to which you were referring, oh by the way they also won a Sugar Bowl in that time.

So basically you're looking at these schools who spent decades building to be one of the best G5 programs, circled what was arguably the best three year period in program history for all three of them and comparing it to their first three, five or six years as a P5 program where nearly all the advantages they had built up against other G5's are rendered null and void.

Talk to me in a decade or two when these programs have actually had time to completely normalize as a P5, most of their conference mates have decades of a head start.