Time to for the G5 Wambulance

(01-05-2018 03:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:13 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  With all of that said, if we get 8 teams, ii think a compromise position would be in. Independents or Group of 5 champions would be in automatically if ranked higher than a power 5 champion or in the top 14 overall (similar to the BCS).

I would want the top G5 in automatically to avoid the discretion and possibly gaming the system. Put the P5 champs and the top G5 champ along with 2 wild cards. Now there is discretion in those last 3 slots, but not whether or not they exist.

I would think most G5 folks would be happy with that. I'm sure most P5 fans wouldn't though. TSISB could be one of the wildcards since they're independent, if they're good enough - but I suppose that wouldn't be good enough for them.

(01-05-2018 09:52 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be equally as unfair to put a 12-0 team that had the easiest schedule in college football in the mix.

I'm not alluding to UCF in that statement but speaking generally.

There isn't a "fair" way to do it that everybody in college football would call fair.

Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Not all conferences are created equally...

...to prove my point

Dang it HOD, I happen to agree with you. I don't really think the other g4 conferences can produce a champion that's good enough to win a NY6 bowl let alone compete for a championship. The g5 bid basically comes down to the AAC against Boise State and maybe Sdsu really. The AAC has spent the past 5 years of its brief existence proving that it can compete at a legitimate level while the rest of the g5 conferences have been sitting back on their collective arses doing what got them left behind in the first place. What bothers me is everybody keep trying to frame UCF's win as a chance to debate whether the g5 can produce a worthy champ. The AAC has - one men Ncaa men's basketball championship
2-3 women's basketball championships
3 NY6 bowl victory in 5 years.
Not once did you or anyone hear the AAC say or even acknowledge anything about the g4, because none of that had anything to do with them

(01-05-2018 04:10 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:52 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be equally as unfair to put a 12-0 team that had the easiest schedule in college football in the mix.

I'm not alluding to UCF in that statement but speaking generally.

There isn't a "fair" way to do it that everybody in college football would call fair.

Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Not all conferences are created equally...

...to prove my point

Dang it HOD, I happen to agree with you. I don't really think the other g4 conferences can produce a champion that's good enough to win a NY6 bowl let alone compete for a championship. The g5 bid basically comes down to the AAC against Boise State and maybe Sdsu really. The AAC has spent the past 5 years of its brief existence proving that it can compete at a legitimate level while the rest of the g5 conferences have been sitting back on their collective arses doing what got them left behind in the first place. What bothers me is everybody keep trying to frame UCF's win as a chance to debate whether the g5 can produce a worthy champ. The AAC has - one men Ncaa men's basketball championship
2-3 women's basketball championships
3 NY6 bowl victory in 5 years.
Not once did you or anyone hear the AAC say or even acknowledge anything about the g4, because none of that had anything to do with them

You are correct in the sense that the AAC could be a G5 leader in advocating and coordinating the G5 to leverage for meaningful changes....but seem to have chosen to play the futile crabs in a bucket game instead.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-05-2018 04:10 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:52 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be equally as unfair to put a 12-0 team that had the easiest schedule in college football in the mix.

I'm not alluding to UCF in that statement but speaking generally.

There isn't a "fair" way to do it that everybody in college football would call fair.

Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Not all conferences are created equally...

...to prove my point

Dang it HOD, I happen to agree with you. I don't really think the other g4 conferences can produce a champion that's good enough to win a NY6 bowl let alone compete for a championship. The g5 bid basically comes down to the AAC against Boise State and maybe Sdsu really. The AAC has spent the past 5 years of its brief existence proving that it can compete at a legitimate level while the rest of the g5 conferences have been sitting back on their collective arses doing what got them left behind in the first place. What bothers me is everybody keep trying to frame UCF's win as a chance to debate whether the g5 can produce a worthy champ. The AAC has - one men Ncaa men's basketball championship
2-3 women's basketball championships
3 NY6 bowl victory in 5 years.
Not once did you or anyone hear the AAC say or even acknowledge anything about the g4, because none of that had anything to do with them

This is exactly where the "P6" idea is foolish. Pushing for an enlargement of the playoff to 8, and arguing that the system is unfair, is going to meet immediate resistance from everyone in the actual autonomy conferences. They stand little to nothing to gain from it. The G5 (which, like it or not, DOES include the AAC) can be supportive of UCF's and the AAC's push for greater access, but that will be harder to get if the AAC is giving a giant "F*** you!" to the SBC, MWC, C-USA, and MAC. The "P6" marketing, and especially the mocking "G4" garbage, alienates four leagues who would otherwise make for great allies of the AAC.

Congrats. The AAC is the best G5 league. No one would argue otherwise. It's still a G5 league.

(01-05-2018 03:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be equally as unfair to put a 12-0 team that had the easiest schedule in college football in the mix.

I'm not alluding to UCF in that statement but speaking generally.

There isn't a "fair" way to do it that everybody in college football would call fair.

Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

So if Ark-State wins its conference with a 7-5 record and makes the playoffs, while 12-1 Clemson doesn't win its conference so doesn't make the playoffs, that's "fair"?

That kind of thing happened in the NCAA basketball tournament back when the NCAA only permitted a conference's champ in the tournament.

There was one year that #1 NC State played #3 Maryland in the ACC tournament final. NC State won the game in 3 OTs. Maryland was left out.

That was 1974, the year NC State won the national title. Had they lost that game, they never would have even played in the tourney either.

I was living about 10 miles from College Park at the time, and remember watching that NC State - Maryland game on TV. Still the most exciting (and heartbreaking) college basketball game I've ever seen, and there have been so many over the years.

That game more than any other was the impetus for expanding the tournament.

(01-05-2018 03:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 11:12 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 10:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be equally as unfair to put a 12-0 team that had the easiest schedule in college football in the mix.

I'm not alluding to UCF in that statement but speaking generally.

There isn't a "fair" way to do it that everybody in college football would call fair.

Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

So if Ark-State wins its conference with a 7-5 record and makes the playoffs, while 12-1 Clemson doesn't win its conference so doesn't make the playoffs, that's "fair"?

In most every other sport, that's the status quo. It's not exactly uncommon for undeserving teams to make the playoffs over more deserving teams, look at MLB, where about a quarter century ago a 103-win team missed the playoffs and most years a good team is left out in favor of a weaker one. The same holds true in the NFL many, many times over the years and even the NBA has suffered this because the conferences aren't balanced.

Also in most other sports you don't have 27 of the 130 members that have been added in the last 25 years (and 14 in the last dozen) when most of those are lower level programs that just happen to have a new label and scholarship limit.

The NBA has added 7 teams in the last 30 years or just under 1/4 of the entire NBA. I realize it's not apples-to-apples but the NBA does guarantee that if you're good enough to win your region, you can compete for the title, sometimes even if a team from another region has a better record.

Who cares about recency? If you're good, you're good. The majors stay in charge in part because this circular logic of "We're good because we're good and we've always been good." Yet we see FCS teams smack some of the 65 around on their home fields. Oklahoma almost made the playoffs last year, yet was smashed by the fourth place team in the AAC West. And I can go on.

(01-05-2018 05:18 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The NBA has added 7 teams in the last 30 years or just under 1/4 of the entire NBA. I realize it's not apples-to-apples

So many reasons why it's not an apples to apples comparison.

The NBA is not a voluntary association that anyone can join by meeting bare minimum requirements. Much, much greater barriers to entry than FBS, or D-I for that matter, as evidenced by the huge rush of move-ups over the last 30 years.

Why does the NBA have a 16-team tournament, rather than 4 or 8 teams? Money, of course. They're not doing it out of some divine guidance that fairness must be the guiding principle of the NBA.

We all know that money, rather than fairness, has always been #1 on the to-do list and always will be. Being a fan of any sport, pro or college, is not the best fit for someone if lack of total fairness is their deal-breaker, just as living in Minnesota is not for someone if cold winters are their deal-breaker.

FBS football isn't voluntary but the P5 has not been the only contributors. They didn't create the NCAA alone and have no right to suppress access to the championship. I realize it's a game of semantics and the other conferences also agreed to the contract but they are in no position of strength. It's a Catch-22 that the 65 are good because they're good. They reinforce that by having their committee do stuff like underrank any outsider conference member.

We're subjected to the same BS over and over. How exactly was UCF's win the other night a surprise? Is it really an upset when we see it over an over?

(01-05-2018 03:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  Also in most other sports you don't have 27 of the 130 members that have been added in the last 25 years (and 14 in the last dozen) when most of those are lower level programs that just happen to have a new label and scholarship limit.

I wonder how many FBS members would still qualify if they enforced the 15K minimum attendance rule. I haven't seen 2017 numbers yet, but last year there were at least 10 FBS programs under the minimum and another half dozen or so barely over.

If they increased the attendance minimum to 20K, you're looking at like 27 schools that wouldn't meet the cutoff. It's hard to argue that you should be part of the top level of college football if you can't average 20K home game attendance...let alone 15K.

(01-05-2018 01:29 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:19 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  The title of this thread is "College football doesn't fairly name a national champion". There is an extraneous, and very misleading, word in that sentence - "fairly".

Including that modifier suggests that college football actually names a national champion. It does not, at least at the FBS level, and it never has. Personally, I find that stance on the part of the NCAA to be philosophically very satisfying. I am quite content to have a season conclude without a definitive pronouncement that some "we" is (are?) Number 1!

We could all pick some arbitrary tournament format and claim that the winner is the national champion. But then, many fans would misinterpret that to mean that the winner is somehow the "best" team. Those would usually be fans of the winning team, while fans of other good teams would continue to make the case that theirs was actually the better team. I don't see how that is much different than what we have now.

I believe the need on the part of Americans (and truth be told, other countries as well) that there only be one winner, and everybody else be losers, is a serious character flaw that does no one any good. Keep things just the way they are.

Why is that always the answer? "If you don't like it, leave." Nobody wants to leave the FBS. They just want improvement.

You say that as if I said or implied it. Maybe you meant to quote some other post that actually did say it.

Ken D,

My bad. My response was intended for Bearcat Jerry's comment. Good thing this is just a message board and not a work memo.

No worries. It's not like I haven't made similar goofs.

(01-05-2018 02:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 01:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  The title of this thread is "College football doesn't fairly name a national champion". There is an extraneous, and very misleading, word in that sentence - "fairly".

Including that modifier suggests that college football actually names a national champion. It does not, at least at the FBS level, and it never has. Personally, I find that stance on the part of the NCAA to be philosophically very satisfying. I am quite content to have a season conclude without a definitive pronouncement that some "we" is (are?) Number 1!

We could all pick some arbitrary tournament format and claim that the winner is the national champion. But then, many fans would misinterpret that to mean that the winner is somehow the "best" team. Those would usually be fans of the winning team, while fans of other good teams would continue to make the case that theirs was actually the better team. I don't see how that is much different than what we have now.

I believe the need on the part of Americans (and truth be told, other countries as well) that there only be one winner, and everybody else be losers, is a serious character flaw that does no one any good. Keep things just the way they are.

FBS college football does indeed name a national champion. The NCAA does not, at least at the FBS level.

Well, college football fans have done so since 1936. And some even got the brilliant idea to go back and declare "champions" back to football's earliest days. While some may slip up from time to time, PTB generally are careful to put qualifiers like "mythical" champion, or AP champion, or BCS champion or CFP champion.

What the BCS and CFP have done is given fans an excuse to remove the "mythical" tag. Ironically, it is the insistence that G5 schools are limited or excluded from access to a national championship that elevates and legitimizes the status of the CFP as a true "national championship"

If you want to make the point that it isn't, I would suggest taking every opportunity to refer to the winner of Monday night's game as the "CFP tournament Champion", and to refer to past winners the same way.

(01-05-2018 04:35 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 04:10 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:52 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be equally as unfair to put a 12-0 team that had the easiest schedule in college football in the mix.

I'm not alluding to UCF in that statement but speaking generally.

There isn't a "fair" way to do it that everybody in college football would call fair.

Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Not all conferences are created equally...

...to prove my point

Dang it HOD, I happen to agree with you. I don't really think the other g4 conferences can produce a champion that's good enough to win a NY6 bowl let alone compete for a championship. The g5 bid basically comes down to the AAC against Boise State and maybe Sdsu really. The AAC has spent the past 5 years of its brief existence proving that it can compete at a legitimate level while the rest of the g5 conferences have been sitting back on their collective arses doing what got them left behind in the first place. What bothers me is everybody keep trying to frame UCF's win as a chance to debate whether the g5 can produce a worthy champ. The AAC has - one men Ncaa men's basketball championship
2-3 women's basketball championships
3 NY6 bowl victory in 5 years.
Not once did you or anyone hear the AAC say or even acknowledge anything about the g4, because none of that had anything to do with them

This is exactly where the "P6" idea is foolish. Pushing for an enlargement of the playoff to 8, and arguing that the system is unfair, is going to meet immediate resistance from everyone in the actual autonomy conferences. They stand little to nothing to gain from it. The G5 (which, like it or not, DOES include the AAC) can be supportive of UCF's and the AAC's push for greater access, but that will be harder to get if the AAC is giving a giant "F*** you!" to the SBC, MWC, C-USA, and MAC. The "P6" marketing, and especially the mocking "G4" garbage, alienates four leagues who would otherwise make for great allies of the AAC.

Congrats. The AAC is the best G5 league. No one would argue otherwise. It's still a G5 league.

***NEWSFLASH*** to you and ark30inf, there is no such thing as a g5 division in college football!! There is no contractual collective case that the AAC can make for you . I encourage you and your programs and conference leaders to put together a plan for improvement and possible inclusion into this made up thing known as the p5 just like the AAC is doing.

(01-05-2018 06:25 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 03:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  Also in most other sports you don't have 27 of the 130 members that have been added in the last 25 years (and 14 in the last dozen) when most of those are lower level programs that just happen to have a new label and scholarship limit.

I wonder how many FBS members would still qualify if they enforced the 15K minimum attendance rule. I haven't seen 2017 numbers yet, but last year there were at least 10 FBS programs under the minimum and another half dozen or so barely over.

If they increased the attendance minimum to 20K, you're looking at like 27 schools that wouldn't meet the cutoff. It's hard to argue that you should be part of the top level of college football if you can't average 20K home game attendance...let alone 15K.

When our own alumni adopt a P5 team they did not even attend because they are "relevant"...then that also is skewed due to the cartel's stranglehold.

Troy won the SBC 5 times in a row. Can you imagine the impact on their attendance and "relevancy" if those had also included 5 playoff appearances in a row? And if they had won a game or two there?

Don't give me the 15K dodge when G5 attendance and support has been corroded by imposed irrelevancy by the P5 over decades.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-05-2018 07:01 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 04:35 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 04:10 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:52 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:48 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Yes, there is. All conference champions get playoff spots like any real sport.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Not all conferences are created equally...

...to prove my point

Dang it HOD, I happen to agree with you. I don't really think the other g4 conferences can produce a champion that's good enough to win a NY6 bowl let alone compete for a championship. The g5 bid basically comes down to the AAC against Boise State and maybe Sdsu really. The AAC has spent the past 5 years of its brief existence proving that it can compete at a legitimate level while the rest of the g5 conferences have been sitting back on their collective arses doing what got them left behind in the first place. What bothers me is everybody keep trying to frame UCF's win as a chance to debate whether the g5 can produce a worthy champ. The AAC has - one men Ncaa men's basketball championship
2-3 women's basketball championships
3 NY6 bowl victory in 5 years.
Not once did you or anyone hear the AAC say or even acknowledge anything about the g4, because none of that had anything to do with them

This is exactly where the "P6" idea is foolish. Pushing for an enlargement of the playoff to 8, and arguing that the system is unfair, is going to meet immediate resistance from everyone in the actual autonomy conferences. They stand little to nothing to gain from it. The G5 (which, like it or not, DOES include the AAC) can be supportive of UCF's and the AAC's push for greater access, but that will be harder to get if the AAC is giving a giant "F*** you!" to the SBC, MWC, C-USA, and MAC. The "P6" marketing, and especially the mocking "G4" garbage, alienates four leagues who would otherwise make for great allies of the AAC.

Congrats. The AAC is the best G5 league. No one would argue otherwise. It's still a G5 league.

***NEWSFLASH*** to you and ark30inf, there is no such thing as a g5 division in college football!! There is no contractual collective case that the AAC can make for you . I encourage you and your programs and conference leaders to put together a plan for improvement and possible inclusion into this made up thing known as the p5 just like the AAC is doing.

How about this plan...the 5 conferences that are discriminated against work together to turn the league's playoff system into one that treats its constituent parts like all other sports leagues do?

Far more likely to have successful outcome than stabbing each other in the neck and being trolling dbags will.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-05-2018 06:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 05:18 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The NBA has added 7 teams in the last 30 years or just under 1/4 of the entire NBA. I realize it's not apples-to-apples

So many reasons why it's not an apples to apples comparison.

The NBA is not a voluntary association that anyone can join by meeting bare minimum requirements. Much, much greater barriers to entry than FBS, or D-I for that matter, as evidenced by the huge rush of move-ups over the last 30 years.

Why does the NBA have a 16-team tournament, rather than 4 or 8 teams? Money, of course. They're not doing it out of some divine guidance that fairness must be the guiding principle of the NBA.

We all know that money, rather than fairness, has always been #1 on the to-do list and always will be. Being a fan of any sport, pro or college, is not the best fit for someone if lack of total fairness is their deal-breaker, just as living in Minnesota is not for someone if cold winters are their deal-breaker.

Yes, in fact, the playoff systems of the NFL and NBA and NHL almost surely commit the opposite error of what the CFP allegedly commits - they allow undeserving teams to be in the playoffs. If an NFL team goes 9-7 or an NBA team goes 44-40, you can hardly argue that they accomplished enough to be pitted in playoff games versus teams that proved they were better over a 5 or 6 month long regular season. No way should a 44-40 team get another crack at a 60-22 team, or a 9-7 team at a 13-3 team, but the leagues have those games because they make money.

(01-05-2018 11:10 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  16 team playoff:
10 conference Champs
6 at-Large

Everybody has a chance.

I'd go with a 12-team system in which all teams/seeds are chosen by a transparent computer rating (ala Pairwise for college hockey), but that's more or less the same to your proposal. Using pre-bowl rankings we'd probably get the following bracket this season:

Clemson
Boise @ UCF

Alabama
Troy @ OSU

Oklahoma
Toledo @ Auburn

Georgia
FAU @ Wisconsin

I base mine off principle, as others stated I believe it's against the nature of sports leagues to maintain a system in which it's practically impossible for a great majority of participating teams to win the national championship. If you disagree then so be it, but you better be advocating for the NCAA tourney to return to eight teams like it originally was. After all, why should Texas Southern get a chance to compete in the Big Dance when the SWAC is an awful basketball league and the likes of Villanova prove themselves during the season in a major conference?

(01-05-2018 07:20 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 07:01 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 04:35 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 04:10 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:52 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not all conferences are created equally...

...to prove my point

Dang it HOD, I happen to agree with you. I don't really think the other g4 conferences can produce a champion that's good enough to win a NY6 bowl let alone compete for a championship. The g5 bid basically comes down to the AAC against Boise State and maybe Sdsu really. The AAC has spent the past 5 years of its brief existence proving that it can compete at a legitimate level while the rest of the g5 conferences have been sitting back on their collective arses doing what got them left behind in the first place. What bothers me is everybody keep trying to frame UCF's win as a chance to debate whether the g5 can produce a worthy champ. The AAC has - one men Ncaa men's basketball championship
2-3 women's basketball championships
3 NY6 bowl victory in 5 years.
Not once did you or anyone hear the AAC say or even acknowledge anything about the g4, because none of that had anything to do with them

This is exactly where the "P6" idea is foolish. Pushing for an enlargement of the playoff to 8, and arguing that the system is unfair, is going to meet immediate resistance from everyone in the actual autonomy conferences. They stand little to nothing to gain from it. The G5 (which, like it or not, DOES include the AAC) can be supportive of UCF's and the AAC's push for greater access, but that will be harder to get if the AAC is giving a giant "F*** you!" to the SBC, MWC, C-USA, and MAC. The "P6" marketing, and especially the mocking "G4" garbage, alienates four leagues who would otherwise make for great allies of the AAC.

Congrats. The AAC is the best G5 league. No one would argue otherwise. It's still a G5 league.

***NEWSFLASH*** to you and ark30inf, there is no such thing as a g5 division in college football!! There is no contractual collective case that the AAC can make for you . I encourage you and your programs and conference leaders to put together a plan for improvement and possible inclusion into this made up thing known as the p5 just like the AAC is doing.

How about this plan...the 5 conferences that are discriminated against work together to turn the league's playoff system into one that treats its constituent parts like all other sports leagues do?

Far more likely to have successful outcome than stabbing each other in the neck and being trolling dbags will.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

How has myself or the AAC "stabbed " anyone in the neck? What makes you think that the AAC has the same goal in mind as the other g5 conferences? The AAC has been very upfront from the beginning what it's goals and aspirations were, and it never included any other g5 conferences, sorry. Hey I really wish you guys good luck and I pull for y'all honestly but your problems start and end with your pitiful
conference leaders not the AAC. Honestly I think that the sunbelt is great and better than the Mac or CUSA

(01-05-2018 08:12 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  How has myself or the AAC "stabbed " anyone in the neck? What makes you think that the AAC has the same goal in mind as the other g5 conferences? The AAC has been very upfront from the beginning what it's goals and aspirations were, and it never included any other g5 conferences, sorry. Hey I really wish you guys good luck and I pull for y'all honestly but your problems start and end with your pitiful
conference leaders not the AAC. Honestly I think that the sunbelt is great and better than the Mac or CUSA

I agree that the AAC has since day one had Power aspirations.

But this whole UCF situation has exposed deep contradictions in AAC propaganda. The AAC has been proclaiming for a couple years now that it is indeed not just a Power league, but part of the Power group, i.e., "P6".

But the AAC's complaints about UCF not making the playoffs are based on the notion that UCF has been slighted by the committee because the Power Group is unfairly keeping them out.

Because then the reply is "Er, how can the Power Group be keeping UCF out when UCF is IN the Power Group? P6, remember?"

(01-05-2018 07:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 06:25 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 03:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  Also in most other sports you don't have 27 of the 130 members that have been added in the last 25 years (and 14 in the last dozen) when most of those are lower level programs that just happen to have a new label and scholarship limit.

I wonder how many FBS members would still qualify if they enforced the 15K minimum attendance rule. I haven't seen 2017 numbers yet, but last year there were at least 10 FBS programs under the minimum and another half dozen or so barely over.

If they increased the attendance minimum to 20K, you're looking at like 27 schools that wouldn't meet the cutoff. It's hard to argue that you should be part of the top level of college football if you can't average 20K home game attendance...let alone 15K.

When our own alumni adopt a P5 team they did not even attend because they are "relevant"...then that also is skewed due to the cartel's stranglehold.

Troy won the SBC 5 times in a row. Can you imagine the impact on their attendance and "relevancy" if those had also included 5 playoff appearances in a row? And if they had won a game or two there?

Don't give me the 15K dodge when G5 attendance and support has been corroded by imposed irrelevancy by the P5 over decades.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

There was a big difference back when the NCAA had a TV cartel. Of course, half the G5 were I-AA or didn't even have football.