I really think CUSA, Sun Belt, American, MWC, and MAC need to push for this:
Schools like Western Kentucky, Western Michigan, App State, etc all deserve a chance at a National Championship this year.

Just drop all the bowls and go to a 16 team playoff.

Dec. 2/3 (Week After Thanksgiving) - Conference Championships (Every conference must have one winner goes to playoff, playoff committee picks 6 at large school and seeds teams )
Conference Champions:
Temple
Clemson
Penn State
Oklahoma
WKU
Western Michigan
San Diego St
Washington
Alabama
Appalchian State
At-Large:
Ohio State
Michigan
Wisconsin
USC
Colorado
Florida State

Seeding
1 Alabama
2 Clemson
3 Ohio State
4 Washington
5 Penn State
6 Michigan
7 Oklahoma
8 Wisconsin
9 USC
10 Colorado
11 Florida State
12 Western Michigan
13 San Diego State
14 Temple
15 Appalachian State
16 WKU

Dec. 9/10 (Following Week, games played) 1st Round
16 WKU @ 1 Alabama
9 USC @ 8 Wisconsin
12 Western M. @ 5 Penn State
14 SDSU @ 4 Washington
11 Florida St. @ 6 Michigan
14 Temple @ 3 Ohio State
10 Colorado @ 7 Oklahoma
15 App St. @ 2 Clemson

Dec. 16/17 2nd Round
4 Games all on campus, highest seed hosts

New Years Day
2 Playoff Games Neutral Site

National Championship Same as Now


This is the only way to make it fair for everyone and keep it fun. Would be way more fun watching 8 games on the weekend with each team playing for survival. The same goes for the second round. Imagine a Michigan home game at Noon in the second round with heavy snow, or Wisconsin going to Alabama, or Western Michigan pulling the upset at Penn State. TV wants to two things. 1 Large programs going head to head and 2 Cinderellas pulling upsets. This gives you both.

Another thing it does makes the conference championships important since it gets you to the playoff.

No argument from me...

(12-24-2016 01:33 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I really think CUSA, Sun Belt, American, MWC, and MAC need to push for this:
Schools like Western Kentucky, Western Michigan, App State, etc all deserve a chance at a National Championship this year.

Just drop all the bowls and go to a 16 team playoff.

Dec. 2/3 (Week After Thanksgiving) - Conference Championships (Every conference must have one winner goes to playoff, playoff committee picks 6 at large school and seeds teams )
Conference Champions:
Temple
Clemson
Penn State
Oklahoma
WKU
Western Michigan
Wyoming
Washington
Alabama
Appalchian State
At-Large:
Ohio State
Michigan
Wisconsin
USC
Colorado
Florida State

Seeding
1 Alabama
2 Clemson
3 Ohio State
4 Washington
5 Penn State
6 Michigan
7 Oklahoma
8 Wisconsin
9 USC
10 Colorado
11 Florida State
12 Western Michigan
13 San Diego State
14 Temple
15 Appalachian State
16 WKU

Dec. 9/10 (Following Week, games played) 1st Round
16 WKU @ 1 Alabama
9 USC @ 8 Wisconsin
12 Western M. @ 5 Penn State
14 SDSU @ 4 Washington
11 Florida St. @ 6 Michigan
14 Temple @ 3 Ohio State
10 Colorado @ 7 Oklahoma
15 App St. @ 2 Clemson

Dec. 16/17 2nd Round
4 Games all on campus, highest seed hosts

New Years Day
2 Playoff Games Neutral Site

National Championship Same as Now


This is the only way to make it fair for everyone and keep it fun. Would be way more fun watching 8 games on the weekend with each team playing for survival. The same goes for the second round. Imagine a Michigan home game at Noon in the second round with heavy snow, or Wisconsin going to Alabama, or Western Michigan pulling the upset at Penn State. TV wants to two things. 1 Large programs going head to head and 2 Cinderellas pulling upsets. This gives you both.

Another thing it does makes the conference championships important since it gets you to the playoff.

They don't care about fair and they don't care about fun. They care about $$ and including us cuts into it. If it was more profitable they would already have done it. And the bowls aren't going to just drop because someone says to. Again, $$. They bowl organizers make a ton off of those bowls even if the bowls make no money.

I take issue with the seeding. WKU should not be seeded lower then Temple or App State. Personally, I think it is a toss up between them and SDSU for the second best team in the G5. I also think WMU should be seeded ahead of Florida State and Colorado. Other then those issues, I like the general idea. Of course the P5 conferences would never go for it.

(12-24-2016 01:48 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I take issue with the seeding. WKU should not be seeded lower then Temple or App State. Personally, I think it is a toss up between them and SDSU for the second best team in the G5. I also think WMU should be seeded ahead of Florida State and Colorado. Other then those issues, I like the general idea. Of course the P5 conferences would never go for it.

Dude it is just an example, not real, fantasy, so don't get caught up with the seeding. By the way I based them off the college football poll

I will ask the OP this, if you were a fan of a P5 school, what would you think of this proposal?

It's such a waste of time for those with no money, no influence, and no chance to sit around and try to be the ones that come up with the plan, especially when the only benefit would go to those making the plan.

The thing you have to do is try and figure out in what areas the downtrodden can try and find a way to have influence. I only see one way to do that, and it comes with risk. We need to put pressure in the only way we can, through scheduling. I've advocated this for years. G5 schools should limit themselves to no more than one P5 opponent per year and then have scheduling agreements among themselves where you can create good match-ups.

That's about the only way we can actually hurt the P5, by significantly reducing the number of teams that end the season with a winning record. If we did this they wouldn't be able to fill 20 of their bowl spots. That means that if those bowls want to play, they have to go solicit G5 teams to fill those spots. They will want the best G5, so now we have positioned ourselves where our best teams are playing their slightly above average teams on neutral sites. We win those games and start changing perception.

Side benefit, with only 65 G5 buy games available, the price will skyrocket, or the P5 will have to offer 1 for 1s.

(12-24-2016 02:07 PM)banker Wrote:  I will ask the OP this, if you were a fan of a P5 school, what would you think of this proposal?

It's such a waste of time for those with no money, no influence, and no chance to sit around and try to be the ones that come up with the plan, especially when the only benefit would go to those making the plan.

The thing you have to do is try and figure out in what areas the downtrodden can try and find a way to have influence. I only see one way to do that, and it comes with risk. We need to put pressure in the only way we can, through scheduling. I've advocated this for years. G5 schools should limit themselves to no more than one P5 opponent per year and then have scheduling agreements among themselves where you can create good match-ups.

That's about the only way we can actually hurt the P5, by significantly reducing the number of teams that end the season with a winning record. If we did this they wouldn't be able to fill 20 of their bowl spots. That means that if those bowls want to play, they have to go solicit G5 teams to fill those spots. They will want the best G5, so now we have positioned ourselves where our best teams are playing their slightly above average teams on neutral sites. We win those games and start changing perception.

Side benefit, with only 65 G5 buy games available, the price will skyrocket, or the P5 will have to offer 1 for 1s.

A school like ECU rarely does a Buy Game most of the time it is a 1-1 with P5s. However yes I would if I was a P5. The money for these playoffs games would be more then the bowl games. Plus schools like Alabama, Ohio State, etc can charge premium prices for their home games like NFL teams do. Alabama could make an easy $10 million with just one home playoff game. 100,000 people at $80 a ticket plus concessions, parking, etc.

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.

(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.

Wyoming lost to SDSU in the MWC championship game. OP had it wrong on list of conference champs and had it right in his list of seeds.

(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.

Fixed. Wyoming lost to SDSU in the MWC Championship, once again the seeding doesn't matter just an example our WKU @ #1 if it makes you happy. Merry Christmas Everyone

It would never happen because its makes too much since

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).

(12-24-2016 01:53 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 01:48 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I take issue with the seeding. WKU should not be seeded lower then Temple or App State. Personally, I think it is a toss up between them and SDSU for the second best team in the G5. I also think WMU should be seeded ahead of Florida State and Colorado. Other then those issues, I like the general idea. Of course the P5 conferences would never go for it.

Dude it is just an example, not real, fantasy, so don't get caught up with the seeding. By the way I based them off the college football poll

No, no, no. You're an ECU fan. Never trust a pirate. They will stab you in the back everytime. Taking a shot at C-USA.

16 team playoff and 10 -15 bowl games and everyone should be happy. No more rewards for 6 win teams.

(12-24-2016 03:11 PM)TopperMan59 Wrote:  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.

Started out so well, but you got a little sideways in the middle there.

I absolutely agree that 10/6 is the right formula, but using the existing bowl system for the full bracket? How exactly is four weeks of neutral site football a good idea?

I have to believe any expanded format will utilize home sites. At sixteen teams the first two rounds should be at the home stadium of the better seeded team.

(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).

They are also getting paid 100 times as much as the rest of us for playing in those conferences.... so they can cry a freaking river and let us have our shot!

(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.

16 would be best and the most fair way to decide the NC with a true national playoff for D-1 football. I would settle for 8 teams and the highest rated G5 school gets an invite so at least we all have a chance. The best part of the NCAA BB Tourney is the upsets.

(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.

(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.

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.