.

One of the moderators on the CSNBBS AAC thread suggested, a few weeks ago, that one way for that conference to take a step forward might be to sponsor a major bowl game in an open time slot on 12/31 or 1/1 to compete with the NY6 bowls.

Whether or not the AAC would have the savvy and the gumption to do something like that isn't certain, since they haven't even had the gumption to replace UConn, but another idea would be for the G5 conferences as a group to take that ball and run with it.

The nation's most highly-ranked G5 team that doesn't play in a NY6 bowl would play one of the top P5 (or FBS independent) teams that don't play in a NY6 bowl.

These are the kinds of teams that would have played in such a "challenge bowl" over the past few years:

2020: (#12) Coastal Carolina (11-0) vs. (#11) Indiana, (#13) UNC, (#14) Northwestern, (#15) Iowa, (#16) BYU, or (#18) Miami

2019: (#19) Boise State (12-1) vs. (#11) Utah, (#12) Auburn, or (#13 Alabama, (#14) Michigan, or (#15) Notre Dame

2018: (#21) Fresno State (11-2) vs. (#12) Penn St., (#13) Wash St., (#14) Kentucky, (#15) Texas, or (#16) WVU

2017: (#20) Memphis (10-2) vs. (#14) Notre Dame, (#15) TCU, (#16) Michigan St., (#17) LSU, or (#18) Washington St.

.

There are some southern cities with large stadiums, such as Las Vegas, Austin, TX, and San Francisco/Oakland that don't currently sponsor bowl games on those dates, and given the nation's voracious appetite for college football, such a game would be guaranteed to generate solid viewership.

.

The primary benefit to the G5 conferences is that it would double the number of G5 teams that would be playing on or about January 1st, and would thus double the likelihood that one of the G5 teams might win one of those games.

Sponsoring such a bowl game might give a needed boost to the regular season viewership of G5 conference teams, and it would also be beneficial from a recruiting standpoint, as millions of aspiring young athletes would see the G5 conferences as being competitive alternatives to the P5 conferences.

.

All that would be necessary to make such a bowl game happen would be for the G5 conferences to set aside a sufficient pool of money to underwrite a "NY7" quality bowl game. Most of the costs would be covered and recouped through corporate sponsorships and broadcasting revenue from the network that would cover the event.

To ensure that a wide range of G5 conferences would benefit, there could be a requirement for the NY6 and "NY7" bowl G5 teams to represent two different G5 conferences.

.

It would be interesting to know what some of you might think about this idea.

Would you have any reservations or recommendations? If so, what would they be?

.

.

One of the things that makes me optimistic about the possibility that a #11 or #12 or #13-ranked P5 team would opt to play in a "NY7" game is
the fact that there would be more prestige associated with such a game than would be associated with the other bowl game(s) that they would play in.

For example, #11 Indiana did not receive a NY6 bowl invitation in 2020. They ended up playing an unranked team (4-5 Mississippi) in the Outback Bowl). If they had been invited to play in a G5 challenge bowl, their opponent would have been #14 Coastal Carolina, a much more prestigious opponent, and a much more high-profile NY-6 quality bowl game.

.

Nevertheless, one of the keys to persuading a good P5 team to accept an invitation to play in such a game would be to provide strong incentives.

The main incentive would be the "purse" for the game. The "purse" would have to be large enough to attract a top 20 P5 team. This might mean that the game wouldn't generate any income for the G5 conferences - - at least not for the first couple of "NY7" bowl games.

A second incentive would be that it would be considered an honor for a highly-ranked P5 team to be invited to play in a "N7" quality bowl game, particularly if the game were promoted with the same kind of advertising hype and the other "bells and whistles" that the NY6 bowls are promoted with.

A third incentive would be that a team's fans would want to see them play a New Year's type of bowl game, while other fans around the country would jeer them if they were to turn it down for fear of losing such a game.

A fourth incentive for some P5 schools and Head Coaches that haven't played or coached in a major bowl game for years would be that they would benefit from playing a "NY" bowl game.

.

The P5 teams listed above for 2017-2020 would just be the "NY7" bowl's short list. If they were to all turn down the invitation, there would be a long-enough list of backup teams that one of them would probably accept the invitation.

In 2020, BYU would have been positioned to receive and accept a "NY7 bowl" invitation, but if BYU wasn't ranked #16 and all the P5 teams on the short list turned down the invitation, these teams would have been invited: (#19) Louisiana, (#20) Texas, (#21) OK State, (#23) NC State, and (#25) Oregon. One of these teams would have had sufficient reasons to accept an invitation to play a "New Year's" quality bowl game.

.

In 2020, (#19) Army (11-2) would have been positioned to receive and accept a "NY7 bowl" invitation, but if they hadn't been, and all the P5 teams on the short list turned down the invitation, these teams would have been invited: (#16) Iowa, (#18) Minnesota, (#22) USC, (#24) Virginia, and (#25) Oklahoma State. One of these teams would have had plenty of good reasons to accept an invitation to play such a high-paying bowl game.

.

(06-03-2021 03:32 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The nation's most highly-ranked G5 team that doesn't play in a NY6 bowl would play one of the top P5 (or FBS independent) teams that don't play in a NY6 bowl.

This is the difficult part. The P5 conferences seem to avoid P5-G5 matchups where they can, they already have full bowl slates, and New Year's Day bowl games never actually pick G5 schools unless forced to by the rules.

A big enough payout could solve this problem, but how would one talk a title sponsor into putting up $30 million per team (or whatever it would cost) for a brand new bowl game where one opponent could be ... Coastal Carolina? Could a large stadium be filled for this kind of game year in and year out?

It's an interesting idea. George Perles and MAC did more or less this very thing in 1997 by launching the Motor City Bowl, and it was a good move that worked well for years. But I'm not sure this NY7 concept would be possible absent the deep pockets of a G5 version of T. Boone Pickens throwing money around. (And programs with a T. Boone Pickens to call their own probably aren't in the G5 in the first place.)

(06-03-2021 05:50 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  This is the difficult part. The P5 conferences seem to avoid P5-G5 matchups where they can, they already have full bowl slates, and New Year's Day bowl games never actually pick G5 schools unless forced to by the rules.

A big enough payout could solve this problem, but how would one talk a title sponsor into putting up $30 million per team (or whatever it would cost) for a brand new bowl game where one opponent could be ... Coastal Carolina? Could a large stadium be filled for this kind of game year in and year out? ...

The general idea would be that by seeding the pot with $10m for the invitees, you get a title sponsor interested in putting up $10m for the kind of P5 school that can be attracted by a $10m payout per school. So some part of the underwriting would NOT aimed to be offset by corporate sponsorship & similar revenues. And then, of course, in lists of Bowls that are sorted by payout, the Go5 seed funding would bump the bowl up the list.

(06-04-2021 12:27 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The general idea would be that by seeding the pot with $10m for the invitees, you get a title sponsor interested in putting up $10m for the kind of P5 school that can be attracted by a $10m payout per school. So some part of the underwriting would NOT aimed to be offset by corporate sponsorship & similar revenues. And then, of course, in lists of Bowls that are sorted by payout, the Go5 seed funding would bump the bowl up the list.

That's $150,000 per G5 school. Not chump change.

I'd love to see another New Year's Day bowl game involving the G5 and the P5. This sounds tough to pull off, though. I hope I'm wrong.

Wouldn’t the highest ranked P5 team not in NY6 bowl rather play the next highest P5 or third highest or any other ranked P5 team first before any G5 team? And more importantly, wouldn’t ESPN or whoever and/or a title sponsor rather have two ranked teams the general public is familiar with? I guess I’m not understanding how the much poorer G5 could overcome those disadvantages by outbidding the normal financial backers. Wouldn’t this just make the rich richer and the poor poorer? As fans, we’d all love to see the game, but would the universities, especially those whose teams would rarely be in the running for this game most years, consider this money well spent? Or is the concept based on hoping to find a G5 supporting big money source? Granted, I might be missing something here that answers those questions, but while I’d love the game, I don’t see how it actually happens.

(06-04-2021 02:18 PM)axeme Wrote:  Wouldn’t the highest ranked P5 team not in NY6 bowl rather play the next highest P5 or third highest or any other ranked P5 team first before any G5 team?

That might be the case, but such a preference wouldn't be the sole factor determining their decision. There are other important factors that they would consider, such as the ranking of the team that they would be playing, the amount of national exposure/viewership they would receive, and the amount that they would be paid.

More importantly, plenty of P5 teams have played bowl games vs. non-P5 teams, including:

The 2020 Liberty Bowl (WVU vs. Army; 3.74 million viewers)

The 2019 Liberty Bowl (K. St. vs. Navy; 3.3 million viewers[/b])

The 2019 Quick Lane Bowl (Pittsburgh vs. Eastern Michigan; 3 million viewers[/b])

The 2018 Las Vegas Bowl (Fresno St. vs. Arizona St.; 3.3 million viewers[/b])

The 2018 Military Bowl (Virginia Tech vs. Cincinnati; 2.7 million viewers)

The 2017 Las Vegas Bowl (Boise St. vs. Oregon; 3.8 million viewers)

The 2017 Liberty Bowl (Iowa St. vs. Memphis; 3.4 million viewers)

The 2017 Birmingham Bowl (USF vs. Texas Tech; 3.4 million viewers)


Further, some P5 schools might actually prefer to play a slightly lower-ranked opponent, particularly if their highest priority is to win the game, since a win in a major bowl game would help them, going forward, from a recruiting, attendance, and fund-raising standpoint.

(06-04-2021 02:18 PM)axeme Wrote:  ...wouldn’t ESPN or whoever and/or a title sponsor rather have two ranked teams the general public is familiar with?

Not necessarily. They might care the most about the team's potential viewership, and there might be some highly-ranked non-P5 teams that would have very competitive levels of viewership.

For example:

The 2020 Peach Bowl (Cincinnati vs. UGA) ranked #4th in bowl game viewership, with 8.73 million viewers (more viewers than the Orange, Fiesta, and Cotton Bowls, featuring Texas A&M vs. UNC, Iowa St. vs. Oregon, and Oklahoma vs. Florida, - had).

The 2019 Cotton Bowl (Penn St. vs. Memphis; 6.22 million viewers) had more viewers than bowl games, featuring Florida vs. Virginia, Texas vs. Utah, and OK ST vs. Texas A&M, Tennessee vs. Indiana, Notre Dame vs. Iowa State, and Auburn vs. Minnesota had).

The 2018 Fiesta Bowl (LSU vs. UCF; 8.47 million viewers) had more viewers than bowl games featuring Florida vs. Michigan, UK vs. Penn State, Washington St vs. Iowa St., Texas A&M vs. NC St., WVU vs. Syracuse, and Wisconsin vs. Miami had.

The 2020 Liberty Bowl (Army vs. WVU; 3.74 million viewers) had more viewers than bowl games featuring OK ST-Miami, Colorado-Texas, and UK-NC State had.

The 2020 Army-Navy game had 7.7 million viewers, and the 2020 regular season game UCF vs. GT game had 3 million viewers.

The 2019 Liberty Bowl (K. St. vs. Navy; 3.3 million viewers) had more viewers than bowl games featuring Arizona St. vs. Florida State, Iowa vs. USC, and California vs. Illinois had.

The 2019 Army-Navy game had 8 million viewers, the 2019 Houston vs. Oklahoma game had 5.4 million viewers, and the 2019 games between CIN and OSU (2.94 million), BYU vs. USC, Wash. St. vs. Houston, Buffalo vs. Penn St. had over two million viewers.

The 2018 Las Vegas Bowl (Fresno St. vs. Arizona State; 3.3 million viewers) had more viewers than bowl games featuring Iowa vs. Mississippi St., TCU vs. California, Minnesota vs. Georgia Tech, Stanford vs. Pitt, Purdue vs. Auburn, and South Carolina vs. Virginia had.

The 2018 Army-Navy game had over 8 million viewers, UCF's 2018 games vs. Cincinnati and Memphis had over 3 million viewers, the 2018 BYU vs. Wisconsin game had more than 2.9 million viewers, the 2018 GT-USF game had 2.5 million viewers, the 2018 Ball State vs. Notre Dame game had 2.5 million viewers.

The 2017 Peach Bowl ([b]UCF vs. Auburn) had 8.4 million viewers, the 2017 Las Vegas Bowl (Boise St. vs. Oregon) had 3.8 million viewers, the 2017 Armed Forces Bowl (Army vs. SDSU) had 3.5 million viewers, the 2017 Liberty Bowl (Iowa St. vs. Memphis) had 3.4 million viewers, and the 2017 Birmingham Bowl (USF vs. Texas Tech) had 3.4 million viewers.

NOTE: In addition, the 2017 Army-Navy game had [b]8.4 million viewers, the 2017 UCF-USF game had 4.6 million viewers[/b], the 2017 Texas Tech vs. Houston game had 3.75 million viewers, the 2017 Cincinnati vs. Michigan game had 3.6 million viewers, the November, 2017 UCF vs. Memphis game had 3.4 million viewers, the 2017 UCLA-Memphis and Navy-Notre Dame games each had 3.2 million viewers, the 2017 BYU vs. Wisconsin and Akron vs Penn State games each had 2.3 million viewers, and the Fresno St. vs. Alabama game had 2 million viewers.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college...v-ratings/

(06-04-2021 02:18 PM)axeme Wrote:  I guess I’m not understanding how the much poorer G5 could overcome those disadvantages by outbidding the normal financial backers. Wouldn’t this just make the rich richer and the poor poorer?

I think that the above data from the 2017 through 2020 bowl games provide strong evidence that a game between the top-ranked non-P5 team and a top 15 P5 team would be capable of generating at least 3-4 million viewers, and could generate as many 6+ million viewers (the #7 bowl games had 8.7 million, 8.4 million, 6.2 million and 5.8 million viewers in 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively).

Thus, a G5-sponsored "NY7" quality bowl would be likely to generate enough revenue to benefit both teams that would play in it.

(06-04-2021 02:18 PM)axeme Wrote:  As fans, we’d all love to see the game, but would the universities, especially those whose teams would rarely be in the running for this game most years, consider this money well spent?

That would depend on what kind of viewership the proposed bowl game would be capable of generating.

Let's bear in mind the fact that the total enrollment of the 65 non-P5 FBS universities is nearly equivalent to the total enrollment of the 65 P5 universities, and that many fans of non-P5 teams would have a particular interest in watching a game sponsored by the G5 conferences and presented as a "challenge bowl," with the two teams representing the G5 and P5 conferences.

If the viewership levels would be in the predicted (3.5 to 5+ million viewers) range, it should be possible for the bowl to become self-sustaining, particularly if it is able to attract a reasonably strong corporate sponsor.

NOTE: It shouldn't be difficult to find a corporate sponsor for such a bowl game, since a large national corporation would have a strong financial interest in sponsoring a game that would be keenly followed by the students, fans, alumni, staff, families, and communities of 65 of the nation's largest universities and the three major service academies.


If the sponsored bowl were to become self-sustaining, the schools wouldn't have to keep contributing after the first or second bowl game is played, and they would be able to receive distributions that would pay them back for their initial investments.

One way to ensure that the universities that aren't able to send teams to play in the NY7 bowl would come out ahead would be to stipulate in advance that whichever non-P5 team would happen to play in the NY7 bowl would only receive a sum large enough to pay for their travel and related expenses, plus a small honorarium. Most of the "purse" that would ordinarily go to the non-P5 team's school could instead be distributed to all the non-P5 universities.

In that case, the P5 school would be playing, chiefly, for the honor of representing the non-P5 universities in the game, with the knowledge that, by playing the game, they would be helping to even the playing field between the P5 and non-P5 teams. Needless to say, playing in such a game would also boost their schools' recruiting and attendance.

(06-04-2021 02:18 PM)axeme Wrote:  I might be missing something here that answers those questions, but while I’d love the game, I don’t see how it actually happens.

Hopefully, I have answered your questions effectively. While I don't have all the facts and figures to prove that it would be feasible, I'm pretty sure that a feasibility study would make it clear that such a bowl game could be a real success.

Logically, my reasoning would be that more than half of the bowls that have been able to be self-sustaining with less than three million viewers. The top 17 bowls in 2019 had more than 3 million viewers. A "NY7" quality bowl, featuring the #2 non-P5 team and a top 15 or top 20 P5 team should be able to make the top 10 list in viewership, and the likelihood of being one of the top 11 to 17 bowl games would be very high.

It wouldn't cost much to do a feasibility study. Do you think that you and other fans would be in favor of conducting such an exploratory study, with the understanding that a bowl game wouldn't be sponsored unless it is found to be nearly certain to benefit all of the non-P5 universities that would be underwriting it?

.

What the OP is basically saying is the G5 is worth a second NYD bowl sot and to that point I agree as one NYD bowl for 59 schools isn't enough and that a second would be justified from a numbers standpoint to be more fair.

The means to get there I believe starts with the expansion of the CFP. As we all know the championship bowl structure is decided upon first and from there all the other bowl games are signed. The model that is in the clubhouse lead for when the new cycle begins in a few years is a 12 team playoff which may take care of the problem stated by the OP.

If the NY6 were to go to a NY8 or NY10 where would that leave games like the Sun and Liberty pushed further down the standings with P5 tie-ins? There may be an opportunity for the G5 to pick up a game like that for the next cycle starting in 2026.

For the longest time a G5 season was make or break on its September performance and hanging on to go undefeated in November. Increasingly I believe that like in basketball the concept of a team getting hot down the stretch is a possibility and its possible to do damage in a CFP playoff. The conference championship games are becoming a play-in for the playoff.

I believe there will be much more value of having that second highest ranked G5 team be a conference champ than if not since they would have already passed a big test by winning the CCG. Bringing in the next highest G5 regardless of if they won their CCG to a NYD bowl I'm not in favor of that.

(06-05-2021 10:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What the OP is basically saying is the G5 is worth a second NYD bowl sot and to that point I agree as one NYD bowl for 59 schools isn't enough and that a second would be justified from a numbers standpoint to be more fair.

The means to get there I believe starts with the expansion of the CFP. As we all know the championship bowl structure is decided upon first and from there all the other bowl games are signed. The model that is in the clubhouse lead for when the new cycle begins in a few years is a 12 team playoff which may take care of the problem stated by the OP.

That point would definitely have to be considered. There would be three basic scenarios:

1) A CFP expansion could be announced within the next year.

If this were to occur, it might or might not cause the G5 schools to drop the idea of sponsoring a "NY7" "challenge bowl" game, depending on the format/number of CFP teams.

--An 8-team CFP, which might or might not have any automatic qualifiers or provisions for a non-P5 team to participate, would only be a slight departure from the current CFP format. At most, it would be expected that up to one non-P5 team might be able to participate in an 8-team format CFP, and so the rationale for starting up a G5 "NY7" bowl game would be the same as it would be without any CFP expansion.

--A 16-team CFP might satisfy most of the concerns of the G5 universities, and might obviate much of the motivation that the G5 conferences might have for sponsoring a NY7 type of bowl game.

2) No immanent expectations for a CFP expansion within the next year:

If there isn't any movement toward a CFP expansion within the foreseeable future, it would probably make sense to start up a feasibility study and discuss the possibilities if the feasibility study suggests that such a bowl game would be highly feasible.

3) No signs of a CFP expansion after conducting a feasibility study:

Basically, if there are no indications that CFP is likely to occur within the next 2-3 years, the G5 conferences might opt to agree on a plan and begin to implement it, with the intention to hold the first bowl game by 2024.

.

Q: What if a CFP expansion were to be announced in 2022, 2023, or 2024?

A: It would be up to the G5 conferences to decide whether or not they'd still want to sponsor a NY7 type of bowl game.

--If it seems clear that there isn't going to be any real improvement over the current situation (one slot for a G5 team in the NY6 bowls), the G5 conferences might be inclined to proceed toward sponsoring such a bowl game.

NOTE: It might be possible that conducting a feasibility study and doing some initial planning for a NY7 type of bowl game could make it more likely that a plan to expand the CFP would be announced.

.

(06-05-2021 10:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  If the NY6 were to go to a NY8 or NY10 where would that leave games like the Sun and Liberty pushed further down the standings with P5 tie-ins? There may be an opportunity for the G5 to pick up a game like that for the next cycle starting in 2026.

The G5 conferences would have to wait until such changes would be announced before they could make an informed decision as to how to respond.

If they're happy with the details of an announced expansion to a NY8 or NY10, they would just drop the idea of sponsoring a NY7 bowl. If they're unhappy, they could proceed with their plans.

An important consideration is that starting the ball rolling might be the very thing that would cause the NCAA to expand the number of "NY" bowl games.[/quote]

(06-05-2021 10:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  For the longest time a G5 season was make or break on its September performance and hanging on to go undefeated in November. Increasingly I believe that like in basketball the concept of a team getting hot down the stretch is a possibility and its possible to do damage in a CFP playoff. The conference championship games are becoming a play-in for the playoff.

True. Whether that would affect the interest in sponsoring a "NY7" bowl game would have to be decided after conducting a feasibility study that would take these factors into account.

(06-05-2021 10:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I believe there will be much more value of having that second highest ranked G5 team be a conference champ than if not since they would have already passed a big test by winning the CCG. Bringing in the next highest G5 regardless of if they won their CCG to a NYD bowl I'm not in favor of that.

Many would agree, but a decision on how to select the non-P5 team wouldn't be made until after a feasibility study, which would present the pros and cons of going with the #2 ranked non-P5 team or the champion of the #2 ranked G5 conference.

One thing would almost certainly have to be agreed upon in order to make it worthwhile to all the G5 conferences: The team that would represent the G5 in a G5-sponsored NY7 bowl game would probably have to be a member of a different conference than the G5 NY6 bowl team.

.

(06-04-2021 11:39 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 12:27 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The general idea would be that by seeding the pot with $10m for the invitees, you get a title sponsor interested in putting up $10m for the kind of P5 school that can be attracted by a $10m payout per school. So some part of the underwriting would NOT aimed to be offset by corporate sponsorship & similar revenues. And then, of course, in lists of Bowls that are sorted by payout, the Go5 seed funding would bump the bowl up the list.

That's $150,000 per G5 school. Not chump change.

I'd love to see another New Year's Day bowl game involving the G5 and the P5. This sounds tough to pull off, though. I hope I'm wrong.

I did say "in general". The trick there is that if the corporate sponsorship matches the Go5 seeding, then essentially the Go5 seed money comes back to the Go5 ... it just comes back to the school that is the Go5 #2.

However, a "NY7" is probably overambitious for the strategy of "a better bowl for the Go5 #2 champion". In order to get buy in from P5 conferences, it would have to be lower down the ladder. Still, it could be [b]higher up[b] the ladder than the "lowest ranking P5 school available" that tend to be P5 vs Go5 matchups.

And of course, the payout would be scaled to the position of the bowl.

(06-05-2021 11:20 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:39 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 12:27 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The general idea would be that by seeding the pot with $10m for the invitees, you get a title sponsor interested in putting up $10m for the kind of P5 school that can be attracted by a $10m payout per school. So some part of the underwriting would NOT aimed to be offset by corporate sponsorship & similar revenues. And then, of course, in lists of Bowls that are sorted by payout, the Go5 seed funding would bump the bowl up the list.

That's $150,000 per G5 school. Not chump change.

I'd love to see another New Year's Day bowl game involving the G5 and the P5. This sounds tough to pull off, though. I hope I'm wrong.

I did say "in general". The trick there is that if the corporate sponsorship matches the Go5 seeding, then essentially the Go5 seed money comes back to the Go5 ... it just comes back to the school that is the Go5 #2.

However, a "NY7" is probably overambitious for the strategy of "a better bowl for the Go5 #2 champion". In order to get buy in from P5 conferences, it would have to be lower down the ladder. Still, it could be [b]higher up[b] the ladder than the "lowest ranking P5 school available" that tend to be P5 vs Go5 matchups.

And of course, the payout would be scaled to the position of the bowl.

I think, rather than the G5 trying to force this issue, it really comes down to negotiations with the P5 for the future of the so-called playoff. We have some leverage. They do want our blessing on the thing, and that has some value (which is how we got the first New Year's Day slot).

If they are talking about expanding this thing from four to eight, we should be insisting on a guaranteed spot among the eight for the best G5 team plus a New Year's Day berth for the next-best G5 team. That's not unreasonable.

(06-05-2021 11:20 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  ...a "NY7" is probably overambitious for the strategy of "a better bowl for the Go5 #2 champion". In order to get buy in from P5 conferences, it would have to be lower down the ladder.

The bowl would be referred to as a "NY7" bowl, only in the limited sense that it would be scheduled as close as possible to New Year's Day (probably the evening of December 30th) and that the goal would be to match the most highly-ranked non-NY6 P5 team against the #2 G5 team.

If you're suggesting that some of the more well-known highly-ranked non-NY6 teams (e.g., Alabama, which played Michigan in the 2019 Citrus Bowl) would prefer to play in the Citrus or Alamo Bowl, for a larger payout, you're probably right.

However, when you look at the kinds of opponents the most highly-ranked non-NY6 P5 teams have played in the past couple of years, it seems quite possible that they would have accepted an invitation to play in a G5-sponsored "NY7" bowl game:


In 2020, the top-ranked P5 team that didn't play in a NY6 game was #11 Indiana.

They played (4-5; unranked) Mississippi in the Outback Bowl.

They would have played #12 (11-0) Coastal Carolina in a 2020 NY7 bowl.

They would have played a more prestigious and highly-ranked opponent (#12; 11-0) Coastal Carolina in a 2020 NY7 bowl.

.

If Indiana had turned down a NY7 invitation, #14 (7-1) Northwestern would have been the next most-highly ranked non-NY6 P5 team.

Northwestern played (5-5; unranked) Auburn in the Citrus Bowl.

They would have played #12 (11-0) Coastal Carolina in a 2020 NY7 bowl.

NOTE: Coastal Carolina had 2.62 viewers for their 2019 bowl game, despite playing a non-P5 team (Liberty U.). Had they played in a NY7 game vs. #11 Indiana or #14 Northwestern, their viewership might well have been in the 4-5 million viewers range.

.

In 2019, the top-ranked P5 team that didn't play in a NY6 game was #11 Utah.

They played (7-5; unranked) Texas in the Outback Bowl.

They would have played a more prestigious and highly-ranked opponent (#19; 12-1) Boise St. in a 2019 NY7 bowl.

.

If Utah had turned down a NY7 invitation, #15 (10-2) Notre Dame might have been next on the invitation list.

Notre Dame played (7-5; unranked) Iowa State in the Camping World Bowl.

They would have played #19 (12-1) Boise St. in a 2019 NY7 bowl.

NOTE: Boise State had 2.64 viewers for their 2019 bowl game, despite playing unranked (7-5) Washington. Had they played in a NY7 game vs. #11 Utah or #15 Notre Dame, their viewership might well have been in the 4-6 million viewers range.

.

(06-06-2021 12:28 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  I think, rather than the G5 trying to force this issue, it really comes down to negotiations with the P5 for the future of the so-called playoff. We have some leverage. They do want our blessing on the thing, and that has some value (which is how we got the first New Year's Day slot).

I don't think it's either/or. The Go5 are not driving the playoff expansion conversation, and the Go5 can't drive it, but if it gets going, they will need NCAA Division 1 approval for the extra allowances for CFP games, and getting those votes are a lot easier if the Go5 are not only voting in favor but are also lobbying NFS and FCS schools to vote in favor. Academic politics is a connections game, and the P5 cannot be confident that they have the votes if the Go5 are lobbying against their plan ... so if there's a strong movement toward it, the Go5 have some bargaining leverage.

(06-07-2021 03:26 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:28 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  I think...it really comes down to negotiations with the P5 for the future of the so-called playoff.

I don't think it's either/or. The Go5 are not driving the playoff expansion conversation, and the Go5 can't drive it...

Question: If the Go5 aren't driving the playoff expansion conversation, then who is going to be driving it?

We know that four of the five P5 conferences are blocking CFP expansion.

We know this because the eight Big Ten (2), Big 12 (2), SEC (2), and ACC (2) members of the CFP executive board have consistently voted against CFP expansion.

There are 5 G5 representatives (1 per conference) and 2 PAC-12 representatives who have voted for expansion, a total of 7 votes.

So every vote has gone against the CFP expansion by a vote of 8 to 7.

.

The only hope for CFP expansion is for the Go5 to team up with the PAC-12, which favors expansion, and to lobby all the other conferences to support expansion.

The point is this: Trying to work cooperatively with the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, and SEC is not going to get the Go5 anywhere when it comes to CFP expansion.

It's going to be a battle, and those 4 conferences are the opponents of the Go5 on the topic of CFP expansion

.

(06-08-2021 07:44 AM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 03:26 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 12:28 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  I think...it really comes down to negotiations with the P5 for the future of the so-called playoff.

I don't think it's either/or. The Go5 are not driving the playoff expansion conversation, and the Go5 can't drive it...

Question: If the Go5 aren't driving the playoff expansion conversation, then who is going to be driving it?

We know that four of the five P5 conferences are blocking CFP expansion.

We know this because the eight Big Ten (2), Big 12 (2), SEC (2), and ACC (2) members of the CFP executive board have consistently voted against CFP expansion.

There are 5 G5 representatives (1 per conference) and 2 PAC-12 representatives who have voted for expansion, a total of 7 votes.

So every vote has gone against the CFP expansion by a vote of 8 to 7.

.

The only hope for CFP expansion is for the Go5 to team up with the PAC-12, which favors expansion, and to lobby all the other conferences to support expansion.

The point is this: Trying to work cooperatively with the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, and SEC is not going to get the Go5 anywhere when it comes to CFP expansion.

It's going to be a battle, and those 4 conferences are the opponents of the Go5 on the topic of CFP expansion

.

appears there is gaining momentum to expand to 12 team playoff with 1 G5 team

(06-09-2021 12:49 PM)cmufanatic Wrote:  it appears there is gaining momentum to expand to 12 team playoff with 1 G5 team

Yes, it does seem like ... 12 teams addresses one of the biggest political challenges with the 8 team playoff, which is that the P5 schools want championship autobids to build value for the CCG's, and if they also give a "best of Go5" autobid, that only leaves 2 at-large bids. But if they demand autobids and deny a "best of Go5" autobid, they are politically vulnerable inside the NCAA for the extra post-season games allowance they need to get.

Being "all at-large" the current system is formally open to the Go5, even if it is not in practice.

With 12, that is a 5-1-6, and six at-large bids means the P5 wouldn't find it nearly as hard to include the "best of Go5" autobid that is best for politics inside the NCAA.

I will note that I did not read every paragraph that "JamesTKirk", also known as "jedclampett", said in his multiple wall of words posts.

(06-09-2021 01:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 12:49 PM)cmufanatic Wrote:  it appears there is gaining momentum to expand to 12 team playoff with 1 G5 team

Yes, it does seem like ... 12 teams addresses one of the biggest political challenges with the 8 team playoff, which is that the P5 schools want championship autobids to build value for the CCG's, and if they also give a "best of Go5" autobid, that only leaves 2 at-large bids. But if they demand autobids and deny a "best of Go5" autobid, they are politically vulnerable inside the NCAA for the extra post-season games allowance they need to get.

Being "all at-large" the current system is formally open to the Go5, even if it is not in practice.

With 12, that is a 5-1-6, and six at-large bids means the P5 wouldn't find it nearly as hard to include the "best of Go5" autobid that is best for politics inside the NCAA.

I will note that I did not read every paragraph that "JamesTKirk", also known as "jedclampett", said in his multiple wall of words posts.

For the life of me I don’t know why that troll Jeb Kirk is allowed to post on the board. He ruins every thread with spam walls, talks about the same things over and over. Has obvious sock puppet accounts that he doesn’t even try to hide....biggest jerk on the board.

(06-10-2021 01:49 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 01:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 12:49 PM)cmufanatic Wrote:  it appears there is gaining momentum to expand to 12 team playoff with 1 G5 team

Yes, it does seem like ... 12 teams addresses one of the biggest political challenges with the 8 team playoff, which is that the P5 schools want championship autobids to build value for the CCG's, and if they also give a "best of Go5" autobid, that only leaves 2 at-large bids. But if they demand autobids and deny a "best of Go5" autobid, they are politically vulnerable inside the NCAA for the extra post-season games allowance they need to get.

Being "all at-large" the current system is formally open to the Go5, even if it is not in practice.

With 12, that is a 5-1-6, and six at-large bids means the P5 wouldn't find it nearly as hard to include the "best of Go5" autobid that is best for politics inside the NCAA.

I will note that I did not read every paragraph that "JamesTKirk", also known as "jedclampett", said in his multiple wall of words posts.

For the life of me I don’t know why that troll Jeb Kirk is allowed to post on the board. He ruins every thread with spam walls, talks about the same things over and over. Has obvious sock puppet accounts that he doesn’t even try to hide....biggest jerk on the board.

I thought Kit Kat was the only one with multiple screen names...... yeah.... the mods are rarely here anymore. So this crap happens.