(01-10-2017 11:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 10:00 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 09:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  At the moment there 12 slots in the CFP with 11 of 12 going to the P5 conferences.

What I'm proposing is 20 slots with 15 of 20 going to the P5 conferences. Both the P5 and G5 would pick up more slots.

This was rejected early on, because TV said there was no interest in even a 7th NY6 game, which would have included 14 teams.

Exactly. If the market actually wanted this setup, it would have already paid for this setup by itself (as opposed to needing the CFP leaders overall to force a G5 access slot that the free market never would have created on its own). The reality is that the P5 doesn't want to play G5 schools outside of very limited circumstances (e.g. one of the last one or two bottom tier bowl tie-ins)... and the more important reality is that the free market doesn't want it, either.

The irony is that so many of these threads that are trying to create non-market-based systems to get G5 schools to play more P5 schools in order to draw more interest in bowls is that it proves the entire point of why P5 schools want nearly all of their bowl tie-ins to be against other P5 schools in the first place: playing virtually any P5 school inherently draws more interest (if only from a perception and branding standpoint)... which means it makes no sense for P5 schools to willingly give up bowl tie-ins against other P5 schools.

Anyone can make up a system that would be beneficial to the G5 schools, but I'm failing to see how the P5 benefits in any of this... and the P5 conferences are 100% the ones that matter here because they have complete control. That's just the reality.

Most P5's don't bring any value either. That is why UConn one of the most successful athletic brands was marooned easily on a G5 island.

Only the P5's that draw 70,000+ a game bring value in the sense you are thinking of.

That is why expanding to 16 or 20 CFP games can add value because more 800 pounders can find their way into a CFP game. A byproduct is more access for the little guy with a guaranteed Top 12 or Top 15 rule. Illinois and Minnesota are "little guys" in the system.

Illinois and Minnesota might be "little guys" compared to the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world, but Minnesota just grabbed the coach of the G5 access bowl participant and Illinois has been to both a Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl since 2000. These are also still massive huge flagship AAU institutions with a lot of history and alums across the country and concentrated in major markets (e.g. Chicago and Minneapolis). Even then, those are the *lower* tier choices on paper from the Big Ten. Essentially, the *worst* that a bowl can do with a Big Ten tie-in is a get an Illinois/Minnesota-type school, which any of the G5 bowls would be begging for if they were available.

Now, are there a few P5-level schools in the G5? Sure. I have pretty openly advocated for the Big 12 to expand to include some or all of the likes of UConn, Houston, Cincinnati, etc. and thought that it was a mistake to not expand. However, you're still comparing them to Illinois/Minnesota-level schools at best (the lower tier bowl choices in a league like the Big Ten), much less having an opportunity at getting Michigan or Ohio State in a particular year or schools that buy up tickets like crazy like Iowa and Nebraska. The worst case scenario P5 tie-in for a bowl is just as good or better than the best case scenario G5 tie-in for a bowl (especially for TV purposes), the middle case scenario P5 tie-in for a bowl is far better than the best case scenario G5 tie-in for a bowl, and the best case scenario P5 tie-in for a bowl isn't even in the same universe as the best case scenario G5 tie-in.

As a result, the revenue from bowls and TV contracts that favor the P5 are COMPLETELY logical from a free market standpoint. If the G5 conferences want better-paying bowl contracts, then they need to show their value independently and get the free market (NOT a market-intervening body like the CFP or NCAA) to pay for them. Contrary to what seems to be a commonly mistaken belief on this board, no one is *forcing* bowls or TV networks to pay the P5 many times more than the G5. The market is doing it on its own because the P5 conferences (even beyond the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world) are MUCH more valuable than the G5 conferences.

"The worst case scenerio P5 tie-in for a bowl is just as good or better than the best case scenario G5 tie-in for a bowl especially for TV purposes."
BULLSH!T. Give the bowls and tv viewers Boise St, Navy, Air Force anytime over Illinois, Maryland, Rugers, BC, Pitt, Vandy, Northwestern, Pitt, Cuse, Wake. You are do blinded by your big 10 homerism. . I grew up an Iowa fan. A good stoic program. Shame to see the conference it's playing in fall into the SEC conference t-shirt fan mentality. Thought midwestern folk were too refined for that garbage. What an embarrassment. I hope Illinois or the Big Tenner is paying you. Otherwise you are just a big tenner apologist, conference t-shirt fan.
Cheers!

(01-10-2017 12:26 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  "The worst case scenerio P5 tie-in for a bowl is just as good or better than the best case scenario G5 tie-in for a bowl especially for TV purposes."
BULLSH!T. Give the bowls and tv viewers Boise St, Navy, Air Force anytime over Illinois, Maryland, Rugers, BC, Pitt, Vandy, Northwestern, Pitt, Cuse, Wake. You are do blinded by your big 10 homerism. . I grew up an Iowa fan. A good stoic program. Shame to see the conference it's playing in fall into the SEC conference t-shirt fan mentality. Thought midwestern folk were too refined for that garbage. What an embarrassment. I hope Illinois or the Big Tenner is paying you. Otherwise you are just a big tenner apologist, conference t-shirt fan.
Cheers!

What homerism is there in what I'm stating other than you wish the world was different? If what you've stated is true, why is the most objective measure around (the free market) not stating otherwise with its dollars, exposure and sponsorships? If the people that matter (such as the TV networks, sponsors and bowl committees) didn't agree with what I've stated, then they wouldn't be paying the amounts and entering into the contracts that they do with the P5 as opposed to the G5. That's not homerism from me.

You're the one blinded by your G5 homerism in thinking that all of the P5 schools that you just listed in an attempt to dog them which have some of combination of flagship status, academic prestige even if they're not flagships, large markets, wealthy alumni bases and/or long histories at the top levels of college athletics are going to be lower on the pecking order than G5 schools. (I'll grant the service academies are in a different category than other G5 schools, and I've said that pretty repeatedly in many threads here.) I'm not the one being a homer here. I'm reflecting reality as opposed to the wishes of homeristic G5 fans for some outside force other than the free market to intervene (as if some outside force other than the free market has a better method to establish, well, the free market value of conferences, bowls and anything else in college sports).

If free market was the answer for everything then there would be no college sports other than college football and maybe college basketball.

(01-10-2017 02:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If free market was the answer for everything then there would be no college sports other than college football and maybe college basketball.

Nor would there be any football teams outside of the P5. But there are, and some of them deserve better than they're getting.

(01-10-2017 03:59 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If free market was the answer for everything then there would be no college sports other than college football and maybe college basketball.

Nor would there be any football teams outside of the P5. But there are, and some of them deserve better than they're getting.

What do they deserve?

If sports fans supposedly want to watch Boise State and Navy over Illinois and Minnesota, then why does the AAC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier P5 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against the MWC champ? Why does the MWC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier Pac-12 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against another G5 champ?

G5 fans can't have it both ways. They can't sit here and whine about schools like Wake Forest and Washington State supposedly being less attractive than the best G5 schools for bowls and then turn around and support (and even demand) that their G5 conferences send their best teams to play those Wake/WSU-type P5 schools in bowls instead of playing the other best G5 schools.

If what guys like billybobby77 was actually true about what I've said as being "bulls**t", then an AAC champ vs. MWC champ bowl would be worth more than AAC #1 playing a lower tier ACC team or MWC #1 playing a lower tier Pac-12 team... yet that's not the reality.

Look - I have no problem with G5 fans not liking the college football system as it's set up. However, I fail to see how G5 fans can really argue that their respective conferences are somehow more *deserving* of higher financial rewards when they aren't bringing such financial value to the TV networks and bowls. There might be certain schools that are unfortunately stuck (e.g. Cincinnati, UConn, Houston), but that doesn't translate into entire G5 conferences being underpaid relative to P5 conferences.

(01-10-2017 04:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:59 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If free market was the answer for everything then there would be no college sports other than college football and maybe college basketball.

Nor would there be any football teams outside of the P5. But there are, and some of them deserve better than they're getting.

What do they deserve?

If sports fans supposedly want to watch Boise State and Navy over Illinois and Minnesota, then why does the AAC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier P5 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against the MWC champ? Why does the MWC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier Pac-12 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against another G5 champ?

G5 fans can't have it both ways. They can't sit here and whine about schools like Wake Forest and Washington State supposedly being less attractive than the best G5 schools for bowls and then turn around and support (and even demand) that their G5 conferences send their best teams to play those Wake/WSU-type P5 schools in bowls instead of playing the other best G5 schools.

If what guys like billybobby77 was actually true about what I've said as being "bulls**t", then an AAC champ vs. MWC champ bowl would be worth more than AAC #1 playing a lower tier ACC team or MWC #1 playing a lower tier Pac-12 team... yet that's not the reality.

Look - I have no problem with G5 fans not liking the college football system as it's set up. However, I fail to see how G5 fans can really argue that their respective conferences are somehow more *deserving* of higher financial rewards when they aren't bringing such financial value to the TV networks and bowls. There might be certain schools that are unfortunately stuck (e.g. Cincinnati, UConn, Houston), but that doesn't translate into entire G5 conferences being underpaid relative to P5 conferences.

Because the media gives them more credit for winning an easier game against a mediocre Big Whatever team than they get for beating a much better G5 team like Boise or Houston or whomever.

(01-10-2017 04:30 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:59 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If free market was the answer for everything then there would be no college sports other than college football and maybe college basketball.

Nor would there be any football teams outside of the P5. But there are, and some of them deserve better than they're getting.

What do they deserve?

If sports fans supposedly want to watch Boise State and Navy over Illinois and Minnesota, then why does the AAC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier P5 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against the MWC champ? Why does the MWC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier Pac-12 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against another G5 champ?

G5 fans can't have it both ways. They can't sit here and whine about schools like Wake Forest and Washington State supposedly being less attractive than the best G5 schools for bowls and then turn around and support (and even demand) that their G5 conferences send their best teams to play those Wake/WSU-type P5 schools in bowls instead of playing the other best G5 schools.

If what guys like billybobby77 was actually true about what I've said as being "bulls**t", then an AAC champ vs. MWC champ bowl would be worth more than AAC #1 playing a lower tier ACC team or MWC #1 playing a lower tier Pac-12 team... yet that's not the reality.

Look - I have no problem with G5 fans not liking the college football system as it's set up. However, I fail to see how G5 fans can really argue that their respective conferences are somehow more *deserving* of higher financial rewards when they aren't bringing such financial value to the TV networks and bowls. There might be certain schools that are unfortunately stuck (e.g. Cincinnati, UConn, Houston), but that doesn't translate into entire G5 conferences being underpaid relative to P5 conferences.

Because the media gives them more credit for winning an easier game against a mediocre Big Whatever team than they get for beating a much better G5 team like Boise or Houston or whomever.

It's not about the media. It's that the lower-tier P5 team is worth more *money* to a bowl than the MWC champ... which supports exactly what I stated before that the "worst case scenario" P5 tie-in is worth as much or more than the "best case scenario" G5 tie-in.

(01-10-2017 04:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:30 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:59 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If free market was the answer for everything then there would be no college sports other than college football and maybe college basketball.

Nor would there be any football teams outside of the P5. But there are, and some of them deserve better than they're getting.

What do they deserve?

If sports fans supposedly want to watch Boise State and Navy over Illinois and Minnesota, then why does the AAC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier P5 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against the MWC champ? Why does the MWC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier Pac-12 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against another G5 champ?

G5 fans can't have it both ways. They can't sit here and whine about schools like Wake Forest and Washington State supposedly being less attractive than the best G5 schools for bowls and then turn around and support (and even demand) that their G5 conferences send their best teams to play those Wake/WSU-type P5 schools in bowls instead of playing the other best G5 schools.

If what guys like billybobby77 was actually true about what I've said as being "bulls**t", then an AAC champ vs. MWC champ bowl would be worth more than AAC #1 playing a lower tier ACC team or MWC #1 playing a lower tier Pac-12 team... yet that's not the reality.

Look - I have no problem with G5 fans not liking the college football system as it's set up. However, I fail to see how G5 fans can really argue that their respective conferences are somehow more *deserving* of higher financial rewards when they aren't bringing such financial value to the TV networks and bowls. There might be certain schools that are unfortunately stuck (e.g. Cincinnati, UConn, Houston), but that doesn't translate into entire G5 conferences being underpaid relative to P5 conferences.

Because the media gives them more credit for winning an easier game against a mediocre Big Whatever team than they get for beating a much better G5 team like Boise or Houston or whomever.

It's not about the media. It's that the lower-tier P5 team is worth more *money* to a bowl than the MWC champ... which supports exactly what I stated before that the "worst case scenario" P5 tie-in is worth as much or more than the "best case scenario" G5 tie-in.

Chances are the school is going to lose money on the bowl anyway. If there's a P5 school there might be a higher "payout" though much of that is probably wiped out by the additional expenses required to go to that bowl. The actual bowl might want the P5 due to the higher ratings and depending on location and which bowl, possibly more fans.

(01-10-2017 04:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:30 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:59 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If free market was the answer for everything then there would be no college sports other than college football and maybe college basketball.

Nor would there be any football teams outside of the P5. But there are, and some of them deserve better than they're getting.

What do they deserve?

If sports fans supposedly want to watch Boise State and Navy over Illinois and Minnesota, then why does the AAC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier P5 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against the MWC champ? Why does the MWC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier Pac-12 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against another G5 champ?

G5 fans can't have it both ways. They can't sit here and whine about schools like Wake Forest and Washington State supposedly being less attractive than the best G5 schools for bowls and then turn around and support (and even demand) that their G5 conferences send their best teams to play those Wake/WSU-type P5 schools in bowls instead of playing the other best G5 schools.

If what guys like billybobby77 was actually true about what I've said as being "bulls**t", then an AAC champ vs. MWC champ bowl would be worth more than AAC #1 playing a lower tier ACC team or MWC #1 playing a lower tier Pac-12 team... yet that's not the reality.

Look - I have no problem with G5 fans not liking the college football system as it's set up. However, I fail to see how G5 fans can really argue that their respective conferences are somehow more *deserving* of higher financial rewards when they aren't bringing such financial value to the TV networks and bowls. There might be certain schools that are unfortunately stuck (e.g. Cincinnati, UConn, Houston), but that doesn't translate into entire G5 conferences being underpaid relative to P5 conferences.

Because the media gives them more credit for winning an easier game against a mediocre Big Whatever team than they get for beating a much better G5 team like Boise or Houston or whomever.

It's not about the media. It's that the lower-tier P5 team is worth more *money* to a bowl than the MWC champ... which supports exactly what I stated before that the "worst case scenario" P5 tie-in is worth as much or more than the "best case scenario" G5 tie-in.

It's worth more *money* because the *media* talks about that team 1000000x more and gives more credit to that P5 team just because they chose the right friends 70 years ago when conferences were forming.

(01-10-2017 04:57 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:30 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:59 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  Nor would there be any football teams outside of the P5. But there are, and some of them deserve better than they're getting.

What do they deserve?

If sports fans supposedly want to watch Boise State and Navy over Illinois and Minnesota, then why does the AAC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier P5 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against the MWC champ? Why does the MWC choose to send its champ to play a lower tier Pac-12 school in a bowl instead of having a bowl against another G5 champ?

G5 fans can't have it both ways. They can't sit here and whine about schools like Wake Forest and Washington State supposedly being less attractive than the best G5 schools for bowls and then turn around and support (and even demand) that their G5 conferences send their best teams to play those Wake/WSU-type P5 schools in bowls instead of playing the other best G5 schools.

If what guys like billybobby77 was actually true about what I've said as being "bulls**t", then an AAC champ vs. MWC champ bowl would be worth more than AAC #1 playing a lower tier ACC team or MWC #1 playing a lower tier Pac-12 team... yet that's not the reality.

Look - I have no problem with G5 fans not liking the college football system as it's set up. However, I fail to see how G5 fans can really argue that their respective conferences are somehow more *deserving* of higher financial rewards when they aren't bringing such financial value to the TV networks and bowls. There might be certain schools that are unfortunately stuck (e.g. Cincinnati, UConn, Houston), but that doesn't translate into entire G5 conferences being underpaid relative to P5 conferences.

Because the media gives them more credit for winning an easier game against a mediocre Big Whatever team than they get for beating a much better G5 team like Boise or Houston or whomever.

It's not about the media. It's that the lower-tier P5 team is worth more *money* to a bowl than the MWC champ... which supports exactly what I stated before that the "worst case scenario" P5 tie-in is worth as much or more than the "best case scenario" G5 tie-in.

It's worth more *money* because the *media* talks about that team 1000000x more and gives more credit to that P5 team just because they chose the right friends 70 years ago when conferences were forming.

Yea I remember turning on a "college football" special on TV. They spent an hour on it. Not a word about any G5 teams.

(01-10-2017 12:26 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 11:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 10:00 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This was rejected early on, because TV said there was no interest in even a 7th NY6 game, which would have included 14 teams.

Exactly. If the market actually wanted this setup, it would have already paid for this setup by itself (as opposed to needing the CFP leaders overall to force a G5 access slot that the free market never would have created on its own). The reality is that the P5 doesn't want to play G5 schools outside of very limited circumstances (e.g. one of the last one or two bottom tier bowl tie-ins)... and the more important reality is that the free market doesn't want it, either.

The irony is that so many of these threads that are trying to create non-market-based systems to get G5 schools to play more P5 schools in order to draw more interest in bowls is that it proves the entire point of why P5 schools want nearly all of their bowl tie-ins to be against other P5 schools in the first place: playing virtually any P5 school inherently draws more interest (if only from a perception and branding standpoint)... which means it makes no sense for P5 schools to willingly give up bowl tie-ins against other P5 schools.

Anyone can make up a system that would be beneficial to the G5 schools, but I'm failing to see how the P5 benefits in any of this... and the P5 conferences are 100% the ones that matter here because they have complete control. That's just the reality.

Most P5's don't bring any value either. That is why UConn one of the most successful athletic brands was marooned easily on a G5 island.

Only the P5's that draw 70,000+ a game bring value in the sense you are thinking of.

That is why expanding to 16 or 20 CFP games can add value because more 800 pounders can find their way into a CFP game. A byproduct is more access for the little guy with a guaranteed Top 12 or Top 15 rule. Illinois and Minnesota are "little guys" in the system.

Illinois and Minnesota might be "little guys" compared to the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world, but Minnesota just grabbed the coach of the G5 access bowl participant and Illinois has been to both a Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl since 2000. These are also still massive huge flagship AAU institutions with a lot of history and alums across the country and concentrated in major markets (e.g. Chicago and Minneapolis). Even then, those are the *lower* tier choices on paper from the Big Ten. Essentially, the *worst* that a bowl can do with a Big Ten tie-in is a get an Illinois/Minnesota-type school, which any of the G5 bowls would be begging for if they were available.

Now, are there a few P5-level schools in the G5? Sure. I have pretty openly advocated for the Big 12 to expand to include some or all of the likes of UConn, Houston, Cincinnati, etc. and thought that it was a mistake to not expand. However, you're still comparing them to Illinois/Minnesota-level schools at best (the lower tier bowl choices in a league like the Big Ten), much less having an opportunity at getting Michigan or Ohio State in a particular year or schools that buy up tickets like crazy like Iowa and Nebraska. The worst case scenario P5 tie-in for a bowl is just as good or better than the best case scenario G5 tie-in for a bowl (especially for TV purposes), the middle case scenario P5 tie-in for a bowl is far better than the best case scenario G5 tie-in for a bowl, and the best case scenario P5 tie-in for a bowl isn't even in the same universe as the best case scenario G5 tie-in.

As a result, the revenue from bowls and TV contracts that favor the P5 are COMPLETELY logical from a free market standpoint. If the G5 conferences want better-paying bowl contracts, then they need to show their value independently and get the free market (NOT a market-intervening body like the CFP or NCAA) to pay for them. Contrary to what seems to be a commonly mistaken belief on this board, no one is *forcing* bowls or TV networks to pay the P5 many times more than the G5. The market is doing it on its own because the P5 conferences (even beyond the Alabamas and Ohio States of the world) are MUCH more valuable than the G5 conferences.

"The worst case scenerio P5 tie-in for a bowl is just as good or better than the best case scenario G5 tie-in for a bowl especially for TV purposes."
BULLSH!T. Give the bowls and tv viewers Boise St, Navy, Air Force anytime over Illinois, Maryland, Rugers, BC, Pitt, Vandy, Northwestern, Pitt, Cuse, Wake. You are do blinded by your big 10 homerism. . I grew up an Iowa fan. A good stoic program. Shame to see the conference it's playing in fall into the SEC conference t-shirt fan mentality. Thought midwestern folk were too refined for that garbage. What an embarrassment. I hope Illinois or the Big Tenner is paying you. Otherwise you are just a big tenner apologist, conference t-shirt fan.
Cheers!

The free market says you are wrong.

I think the market can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, to some degree. If you really wanted to make Houston, Cinci, Boise, Toledo, etc. teams be watched more -- they could set it up that way. No, not to rival Ohio State, USC, and Michigan -- but to rival Wake Forest, Rutgers, Vandy, Northwestern? Oh, absolutely.

(01-10-2017 05:28 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  I think the market can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, to some degree. If you really wanted to make Houston, Cinci, Boise, Toledo, etc. teams be watched more -- they could set it up that way. No, not to rival Ohio State, USC, and Michigan -- but to rival Wake Forest, Rutgers, Vandy, Northwestern? Oh, absolutely.

Yes that is what I'm talking about.

I'll admit the B1G and SEC have deep value. You could pull Ohio State and Alabama out of those conferences and still justify mega TV contracts.

However, you pull a couple of studs out of the PAC, B12 or ACC and those conferences are in deep doo-doo. At best Big East dollars and AAC perception.

American sports fans would die if their pro teams lived under a survive or fall system like pro sports around the world.
We don't like a meritocracy system. We want to know that the Cowboys will always be in the NFL and the Yankees will always be in MLB and Michigan will always be in the Big 10.

I've suggested for years the Pittsburgh Pirates move down to the minors.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app