(12-29-2016 04:54 PM)MTowho Wrote:  One dumb*** AD says this and all of a sudden it's the most talked about thing in sports. Screw the ESPN guys that are tweeting this crap out like it's some sort of referendum.

Except its not just one. While there are many more no's vs yes's, there are more that are switching to the yes column as stated in the article.

But I don't think there is a need for a G5 playoff as there will be more schools following Idaho to FCS.

(12-29-2016 01:23 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:17 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:14 PM)bit_9 Wrote:  Yeah, I forgot about WMU. So when that 1 coveted spot is up and you have 2 or 3 teams that are let's say 9-3. It's a subjective "they looked better" race.

WMU is almost an anomaly. Unless the playoff is expanded to 16, there will likely not be a regular G5 in the mix.

I'm not sure how long it will take to expand to eight, it may take years to expand and even then they could just go to six at first expansion, but once it gets to eight, I think we have a chance. Well, if we go to eight and (P5)autobids are included anyhow. If there is an autobid format, I think we have a case for a conditional spot similar to the BCS where the best G5 champ was guaranteed a BCS bowl if they were ranked twelfth or better(or sixteenth or better AND higher than an AQ champ, IIRC).

Now if there's no autobids and it's just the committee's eight top teams, you are absolutely right.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

(12-29-2016 12:34 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Forget about a a G5 in the playoff, even if it is expanded.
If nothing else, scheduling will preclude consideration in most years.
This season, WMU may go undefeated and will not even sniff the playoffs
Marshall, a couple of years ago, flirted with an undefeated season but was never close to consideration.
Houston flirted with a top 5 ranking this season after beating then #3 OU, but proved itself not up to the task.

The dichotomy between the P5 and G5 is now very similar to that of the G5 to FCS. There may be some great wins, but depth would likely not allow a FCS program to compete with the daily grind of a G5. Same with a G5 to P5 - as Houston proved.

As scheduling tightens, and it will as the P5 conferences continue to make an effort to improve their power rankings, Houston may have been the last best chance for a non P5 to make an impact for a long, long time, and really they were not even close.

Take a look at the bowls this year. There are fewer P5-G5 bowls than ever. That is not a coincidence.
The crossover has now dried up to 4 or 5 G5-P5 bowls out of somewhere around 40 total, and is likely to decrease in the future.
If we are going to only have G5 - G5 bowls we might as well make it meaningful and have a playoff instead.

I think its a huge mistake. That said, the proposal is for an 8-team G5 playoff. Why on earth would there be 8 team playoff when there are only 4 G5 champs available? It makes zero sense.

Said it before, and I'll say it again: This was the plan all along. The P5s and their master TV networks had two possible ways of kicking us to the curb. A) They could pull out of the NCAA and face all manner of legal and tax consequences, or B) they could con us into going along with a setup so favorable to them, in short order, we'd be the ones begging for a split. Like idiots, we took the loose change and 1 bowl bid for 60 schools instead of forcing their hand.

(12-29-2016 06:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:23 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:17 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:14 PM)bit_9 Wrote:  Yeah, I forgot about WMU. So when that 1 coveted spot is up and you have 2 or 3 teams that are let's say 9-3. It's a subjective "they looked better" race.

WMU is almost an anomaly. Unless the playoff is expanded to 16, there will likely not be a regular G5 in the mix.

I'm not sure how long it will take to expand to eight, it may take years to expand and even then they could just go to six at first expansion, but once it gets to eight, I think we have a chance. Well, if we go to eight and (P5)autobids are included anyhow. If there is an autobid format, I think we have a case for a conditional spot similar to the BCS where the best G5 champ was guaranteed a BCS bowl if they were ranked twelfth or better(or sixteenth or better AND higher than an AQ champ, IIRC).

Now if there's no autobids and it's just the committee's eight top teams, you are absolutely right.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

P5/4 champs won't get autobids even if the Big XII collapses as long as there is a 4-team playoff. Notre Dame would riot, and the SEC thinks it deserves to have two teams get in half the time. We won't see autobids unless we grow it to 8 teams. If they do that, I think the G5 conferences could, should they make enough noise, convince them to make the G5 NY6 bid a playoff bid IF there's an 8-team playoff and the P5 (or P4) conferences get autobids, too.

I am starting to think that we should ditch the committee and bring back the BCS computers.

(12-29-2016 06:41 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:23 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:17 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:14 PM)bit_9 Wrote:  Yeah, I forgot about WMU. So when that 1 coveted spot is up and you have 2 or 3 teams that are let's say 9-3. It's a subjective "they looked better" race.

WMU is almost an anomaly. Unless the playoff is expanded to 16, there will likely not be a regular G5 in the mix.

I'm not sure how long it will take to expand to eight, it may take years to expand and even then they could just go to six at first expansion, but once it gets to eight, I think we have a chance. Well, if we go to eight and (P5)autobids are incl7uoded anyhow. If there is an autobid format, I think we have a case for a conditional spot similar to the BCS where the best G5 champ was guaranteed a BCS bowl if they were ranked twelfth or better(or sixteenth or better AND higher than an AQ champ, IIRC).

Now if there's no autobids and it's just the committee's eight top teams, you are absolutely right.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

P5/4 champs won't get autobids even if the Big XII collapses as long as there is a 4-team playoff. Notre Dame would riot, and the SEC thinks it deserves to have two teams get in half the time. We won't see autobids unless we grow it to 8 teams. If they do that, I think the G5 conferences could, should they make enough noise, convince them to make the G5 NY6 bid a playoff bid IF there's an 8-team playoff and the P5 (or P4) conferences get autobids, too.

I am starting to think that we should ditch the committee and bring back the BCS computers.

ND will have to join the ACC if all others go to 16. However, the champs of each 4 P conferences would get a playoff spot.

(12-29-2016 06:53 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:41 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:23 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:17 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  WMU is almost an anomaly. Unless the playoff is expanded to 16, there will likely not be a regular G5 in the mix.

I'm not sure how long it will take to expand to eight, it may take years to expand and even then they could just go to six at first expansion, but once it gets to eight, I think we have a chance. Well, if we go to eight and (P5)autobids are incl7uoded anyhow. If there is an autobid format, I think we have a case for a conditional spot similar to the BCS where the best G5 champ was guaranteed a BCS bowl if they were ranked twelfth or better(or sixteenth or better AND higher than an AQ champ, IIRC).

Now if there's no autobids and it's just the committee's eight top teams, you are absolutely right.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

P5/4 champs won't get autobids even if the Big XII collapses as long as there is a 4-team playoff. Notre Dame would riot, and the SEC thinks it deserves to have two teams get in half the time. We won't see autobids unless we grow it to 8 teams. If they do that, I think the G5 conferences could, should they make enough noise, convince them to make the G5 NY6 bid a playoff bid IF there's an 8-team playoff and the P5 (or P4) conferences get autobids, too.

I am starting to think that we should ditch the committee and bring back the BCS computers.

ND will have to join the ACC if all others go to 16. However, the champs of each 4 P conferences would get a playoff spot.

As we've seen this year, being a conference champ means very little in the 4-team system.

The Correct solution is probably the current system with a 4 team playoff for the 4 G5 teams not invited to access bowl. P5 is already about to shut the G5 out of bowls against them entirely anyway.

That would make it this year:

Temple vs WKU
San Diego State vs App State

That's honestly not a bad consolation prize for a league champ. I just don't think it's a very cool consolation prize when your champion has to go face either a terrible P5, or a Mid Tier team from another G5 league.

I do worry though that we are headed down a path in which the G5 is eventually shut out entirely by the P5.

(12-29-2016 07:06 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The Correct solution is probably the current system with a 4 team playoff for the 4 G5 teams not invited to access bowl. P5 is already about to shut the G5 out of bowls against them entirely anyway.

That would make it this year:

Temple vs WKU
San Diego State vs App State

That's honestly not a bad consolation prize for a league champ. I just don't think it's a very cool consolation prize when your champion has to go face either a terrible P5, or a Mid Tier team from another G5 league.

I do worry though that we are headed down a path in which the G5 is eventually shut out entirely by the P5.

Everyone keeps talking about fewer games vs the P5. Let's not forget that there would have been more this year, but the Big XII, Big Ten, and Pac 12 didn't fill all their slots. SDSU was supposed to draw a Pac 12 team, Navy was supposed to get a Big XII team, the HOD was supposed to have a B1G team, etc.

(12-29-2016 07:03 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  As we've seen this year, being a conference champ means very little in the 4-team system.

Nothing illustrates the sheer ridiculousness of it all than the Big 12 adding a title game to improve its chances of getting a team in while the team the Big Ten put in this year didn't even qualify to play in the title game it already has.

(12-29-2016 07:03 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:53 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:41 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:23 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  I'm not sure how long it will take to expand to eight, it may take years to expand and even then they could just go to six at first expansion, but once it gets to eight, I think we have a chance. Well, if we go to eight and (P5)autobids are incl7uoded anyhow. If there is an autobid format, I think we have a case for a conditional spot similar to the BCS where the best G5 champ was guaranteed a BCS bowl if they were ranked twelfth or better(or sixteenth or better AND higher than an AQ champ, IIRC).

Now if there's no autobids and it's just the committee's eight top teams, you are absolutely right.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

P5/4 champs won't get autobids even if the Big XII collapses as long as there is a 4-team playoff. Notre Dame would riot, and the SEC thinks it deserves to have two teams get in half the time. We won't see autobids unless we grow it to 8 teams. If they do that, I think the G5 conferences could, should they make enough noise, convince them to make the G5 NY6 bid a playoff bid IF there's an 8-team playoff and the P5 (or P4) conferences get autobids, too.

I am starting to think that we should ditch the committee and bring back the BCS computers.

ND will have to join the ACC if all others go to 16. However, the champs of each 4 P conferences would get a playoff spot.

As we've seen this year, being a conference champ means very little in the 4-team system.

With 4 16 team conferences, that dynamic changes. They would be a defacto auto bid where the committee just seeds the champs for the playoffs. Sure you'll get a year like this possibly, but with a bigger division, the dynamic changes where there is 1 more division game to be played.
Regardless, that still leaves the G5 out of the playoffs and only an Access spot against a #3 team of a power conference at best.

(12-29-2016 06:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:23 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:17 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:14 PM)bit_9 Wrote:  Yeah, I forgot about WMU. So when that 1 coveted spot is up and you have 2 or 3 teams that are let's say 9-3. It's a subjective "they looked better" race.

WMU is almost an anomaly. Unless the playoff is expanded to 16, there will likely not be a regular G5 in the mix.

I'm not sure how long it will take to expand to eight, it may take years to expand and even then they could just go to six at first expansion, but once it gets to eight, I think we have a chance. Well, if we go to eight and (P5)autobids are included anyhow. If there is an autobid format, I think we have a case for a conditional spot similar to the BCS where the best G5 champ was guaranteed a BCS bowl if they were ranked twelfth or better(or sixteenth or better AND higher than an AQ champ, IIRC).

Now if there's no autobids and it's just the committee's eight top teams, you are absolutely right.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

Yeah, I can't imagine why I ever thought the playoff would expand...

NCAA Men's Basket tournament

1939-1950 8 teams
1950-51 16 teams
1953-1974 varied between 22 and 25 teams
1975-1978 32 teams
1979 40 teams
1980-1982 48 teams
1983 52 teams(4 play-in games)
1984 53 teams(5 play-in games)
1985-2000 64 teams
2001-2010 65 teams(1 play-in)
2011-present 68 teams(4 play-ins)

(12-29-2016 01:44 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I agree that the eight team playoff with a guaranteed spot for the best G5 champ would be ideal.

In the meantime I think the best 4 G5 champs should playoff for the access bowl spot. I hate having it in the hands of the committee. Too much possibility for politics. Have 2 of the Dec 17 G5 bowls play host to the 4 champs and then a week later the 2 winners meet in another current G5 bowl. Winner gets the access bowl and those 3 bowls involved would probably be worth more tv money and have more interest.

You realize you're advocating for a system that, the access bowl representative would be playing three consecutive neutral site games. What G5 fanbase is going to travel like that.

Looking at this year

Call it WMU vs WKU and Temple vs SDSU

December 17th
WKU vs WMU New Orleans Bowl
SDDU vs Temple Las Vegas Bowl

The winners playing in say Dallas or St Petersburg something like that and the winner of that game then playing in the access bowl.

What is attendance going to be like for that? If you can only afford to do one trip and you feel like you have a real shot at the access bowl are you not going to consider holding out?

Our "consolation bracket" is a bad idea anyhow, but playing it at neutral sites is even worse.

(12-29-2016 09:58 AM)bit_9 Wrote:  That's decent but at what point is the line drawn? Let's say we beat VT and UNC next year and go undefeated. Does that mean they can lock us out of competing for the P5 title? Yeah, F that. We beat 2 "blue bloods" and run the table I want a shot at the best.

Why would you deserve a shot when you only beat 2 "blue blood" teams? Heck, the fifth best team in the Big 10 will beat 7 "blue blood" teams in 2017. Heck, there will be at least 20 teams that beat at least 7 P5 schools next year. Why should anybody get a shot for only beating 2?

That is the argument that can not be defeated by any G5 fan. The only way a G5 team can have a legit argument that they should be in a 4 or 8 team playoff is if they schedule 4 OOC games against P5 schools, at least two being ranked with one top 10, and win all 4 of them along with their 8 G5 games.

There are already 2 divisions in FBS. Denying it doesn't change it.

(12-29-2016 11:02 AM)bit_9 Wrote:  ^ ditto. If a separate but equal playoff is wanted that exists. It's FCS. FCS is "D1AA". So are we saying we want the G5 to be D1AA and FCS be D1AAA?

Division I-AAA already exists. It's for Division I non-football schools.

Add another no vote for this playoff plan. We already have a CFP that still can't be considered a true national championship since every FBS conference does not have guaranteed access to play in it. The 8-team plan with a G5 guaranteed bid is the minimum required for me to even think of calling the CFP "national".

(12-29-2016 11:14 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:23 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:17 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 01:14 PM)bit_9 Wrote:  Yeah, I forgot about WMU. So when that 1 coveted spot is up and you have 2 or 3 teams that are let's say 9-3. It's a subjective "they looked better" race.

WMU is almost an anomaly. Unless the playoff is expanded to 16, there will likely not be a regular G5 in the mix.

I'm not sure how long it will take to expand to eight, it may take years to expand and even then they could just go to six at first expansion, but once it gets to eight, I think we have a chance. Well, if we go to eight and (P5)autobids are included anyhow. If there is an autobid format, I think we have a case for a conditional spot similar to the BCS where the best G5 champ was guaranteed a BCS bowl if they were ranked twelfth or better(or sixteenth or better AND higher than an AQ champ, IIRC).

Now if there's no autobids and it's just the committee's eight top teams, you are absolutely right.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

Yeah, I can't imagine why I ever thought the playoff would expand...

NCAA Men's Basket tournament

1939-1950 8 teams
1950-51 16 teams
1953-1974 varied between 22 and 25 teams
1975-1978 32 teams
1979 40 teams
1980-1982 48 teams
1983 52 teams(4 play-in games)
1984 53 teams(5 play-in games)
1985-2000 64 teams
2001-2010 65 teams(1 play-in)
2011-present 68 teams(4 play-ins)

Two different things.
The basketball tournament is run by the NCAA as well as the FCS.

FBS is ran by the P5 and the bowl system.

All 128 teams are in the same clasification
FBS. They all should have some path
To the playoff.

If you want the same dozen teams
To play for the championship keep things
The way they are.

If this same goofy logic applied to college
Basketball. You would have a 4 team invitational
Each year of Kansas, Kentucky, Duke and North Carolina

Last years champ Villanova would never have
Been included and teams like Butler, Gonzaga etc
Would never have had the chance to compete

No logical person would ever design a format like
This for a sport that generates millions for a very
Select few teams.

(12-29-2016 10:43 AM)Artifice Wrote:  Absolutely not.

Emphatic no. Our focus should be on expanding our access to the CFP. There is an 8 team playoff coming, and the G5's entire focus should be on ensuring a seat at that table. The G5 top team or champ should get a guaranteed invite (though not seeding). The more access G5 gets to the playoff, the more they level the power gap, which will eventually also lower the financial gap.

I hope that leadership understands that this idea they have just places the official DI-AA stamp on G5 football.

As stated previously, the 8 team playoff should be the 5 P5 champs, the top G5 champ and two at larges.

If you want to do an invitational type tournament over a long week or two at a beautiful destination for the other 4 G5 champs who weren't selected, I could support that. Would be even better if the losers of round one got sent home. Would be a real incentive to stay in paradise for another week. I also like a single central location. Just be careful with what you name it. I'd make it similar to the "Maui Invitational" in hoops. Some branding like that which emphasizes the locale would work brilliantly. Run it primetime on the off days from the CFP (preferably), or earlier in the same day (less preferable).

Also, with the top champ to CFP, plus the other 4 champs to the new invitational, the CCGs stay relevant, and it doesn't really prolong the season.

This is a good way to do it. Top G5 to the 8-team CFP playoff.
Other 4 champs to the GIT (G5 tournament). Good reward for conference champs all around.

MAC commissioner against G5 playoff idea.

http://www.mlive.com/broncos/index.ssf/2...reste.html

A resounding no please...