(01-25-2024 12:45 PM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 12:42 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 12:40 PM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:24 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

Must have missed the Bowl Season.

Does bowl season even count anymore? All the prima donna's sitting out and transferring at the last minute.

It does unless your trying to promote a bunch of losers.

How ironic

(01-25-2024 10:24 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

Regardless of whether this comes to fruition or not, I smiled when I saw this. I don't think people understand how wild it is for the Sun Belt to rise up from the bottom of the FBS to where it is now in the last decade.

Imagine what we could do if we made as much money as the AAC or MWC.

(01-25-2024 09:32 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:24 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

Regardless of whether this comes to fruition or not, I smiled when I saw this. I don't think people understand how wild it is for the Sun Belt to rise up from the bottom of the FBS to where it is now in the last decade.

Imagine what we could do if we made as much money as the AAC or MWC.

I'd say there is a good chance that your media money and the AAC's will slowly start to balance out after their current deal expires. Budgets might remain far apart, but at the G5 level that is more about what a university is willing to spend to prop up athletics than anything.

EDIT: As far as the graphic is concerned. If we are assuming that the PAC2 and MWC are considered a single conference then I think they occupy that number 5 spot. Washington State and Oregon State will fall off a bit as their new reality sets in, but for 2024 I would expect them to be solid and the rest of the MWC was already pretty tough on their own.

(01-25-2024 09:48 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(01-24-2024 06:16 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  

(01-23-2024 12:43 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(01-20-2024 03:32 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(01-19-2024 11:44 PM)GreenBison Wrote:   and you lost all of them. Lets compare wins like normal people, because wins are why the game is played.

SBC - 4 Wins - 2023
1. James Madison 36, Virginia 35
2. Marshall 24, Virginia Tech 17
3. Texas St 42, Baylor 31
4. South Alabama 33, Oklahoma St 7

SBC - 4 Wins - 2022
1. Marshall 26, Notre Dame 21
2. Old Dominion 20, Virginia Tech 17
3. Georgia Southern 45, Nebraska 42
4. Appalachian St 17, Texas A&M 14

AAC - 3 Wins - 2023
1. South Florida 45, Syracuse 0
2. Rice 43, *Houston 41
3. Memphis 36, Iowa St 26

AAC - 3 Wins - 2022
1. *Cincinnati 45, Indiana 24
2. Tulane 17, Kansas St 10
3. *UCF 27, Georgia Tech 10

What do the 2022 results have to do with 2023. The C-USA6 programs weren't even in the AAC in 2022. That's apples to oranges.

Multiple years shows consistency. Not surprisingly the CUSA6 didn't beat any P5 schools in 2022, regardless of their conference affiliation.

I don’t need stats to know the Funbelt has thrown a wrench in AAC’s and MWC’s ideas of being the top G5. It’s inherently obvious to even the most casual observer.

The G5 needs to come together on things instead of longing for power status individually. I’d love to see an 8-team G5 play-in to the cfp. Would require 2 flex-scheduled games at the end of the regular season, though, for the G5 teams that didn’t make the 8-team G5 play-in. So depends on if, and, how much revenue an 8-team G5 play-in would make. I, for one, would watch the heck out of it. It beats this stupid 1 out of 60+ G5 teams ratio we have now and have planned for the foreseeable future. And I’ve felt this way even before Liberty got the nod for NYD Bowl over G5 champs I’m sure were better than a Liberty that had an FCS-like SOS.

Would also require G5 conferences to NOT have a ccg. So, another factor to weigh in.

If worse comes to worse and G5’s can no longer afford FBS life, then all dropping to FCS might end up not being such a bad thing as long as there’s a play-in to the CFP. Say, top 16 FCS teams (4 games from 1st round to Play-in champ game)…. 3 OOC + 6 Conference + 4 Play-in/2Conference-flex = 13 total games for the 2 teams in the Play-in Champ Game. Or maybe instead of 2 conference flex games, FCS has play-in tournaments into 4-team/2-weekend-spanned Bowl games that include the Autonomous-4 teams that didn’t make the 12-team playoff.

Or!…Maybe the G5 as a whole is where the “relegation” thing is, shall I say, “trialed”. It would be for football only, for sure. And would require added revenue for the added travel expenses. I’m guessing around $250k to $500k per G5 team per year.

Relegation would ruin regional rivalries and make scheduling a pain in the arse. Schedules are made years in advance.

Easy. The 3 or 4 OOC games we do currently would become rivalry games. As each school so chooses, or not. They wouldn’t all 3 or 4 have to be rivalry games. In fact, it would make rivalry games even more heated because the winner could knock themselves up a group and the loser down a group.

The 64-team (4 X 16 matrix) would comprise each group. And it can be scheduled 2 years out.

(01-25-2024 09:48 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(01-24-2024 06:16 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  Or!…Maybe the G5 as a whole is where the “relegation” thing is, shall I say, “trialed”. It would be for football only, for sure. And would require added revenue for the added travel expenses. I’m guessing around $250k to $500k per G5 team per year.

Relegation would ruin regional rivalries and make scheduling a pain in the arse. Schedules are made years in advance.

September schedules are made years in advance. Not all 12 games would be upended due to pro/rel. Give each team 2 spots for "buy" games (whether up or down), 4 rivalry/regional games (AD-agreed G5 opponents), and 6 tier games. If a school can't (or doesn't want to) fill their 6 non-tier games, you just give them a 7th or 8th tier opponent.

Tier games can be provisionally scheduled 2 or 3 years out, but when a team hits pro/rel, those 6+ games will be swapped out while they keep their buy games and regional rivals.

(01-09-2024 10:47 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  Good thread as we stare into the void until week zero.

I'll say Boise. Malachi Nelson was a huge get and they have the Oregon game to impress. I think they could potentially absorb a loss and get in, provided they can beat Oregon (not a guarantee at all of course.)

Your post contradicts itself. You said that they could absorb a loss, and then you said “provided they beat Oregon“. Why can’t Oregon be that loss that they absorb? If they lose a close one in Eugene and run the table, they will be in.

(01-18-2024 12:57 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:54 AM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  I, am just not a fan of this thread. It feels like the beat your chest at the bottom thread.

I'd love to see more people on this thread use statistics to support their points, but that's asking too much.

How do you use “statistics“ in a thread that is literally asking for people to speculate/prognosticate for the upcoming season?

(01-26-2024 09:31 AM)freshtop Wrote:  EDIT: As far as the graphic is concerned. If we are assuming that the PAC2 and MWC are considered a single conference then I think they occupy that number 5 spot. Washington State and Oregon State will fall off a bit as their new reality sets in, but for 2024 I would expect them to be solid and the rest of the MWC was already pretty tough on their own.

I agree with this assessment, especially when taking the off-season so far into account. In terms of Transfers and coaching Hires the MWC is looking really good so far overall. The other advantage they have will be scheduling thanks to the agreement with OSU and Wazzu since as I understand it, both are still considered P5 programs. If Boise in particular can win 2 out of the 3 games vs Oregon, OSU and Wazzu they will be the favorite to make the playoff.

(01-29-2024 08:26 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(01-26-2024 09:31 AM)freshtop Wrote:  EDIT: As far as the graphic is concerned. If we are assuming that the PAC2 and MWC are considered a single conference then I think they occupy that number 5 spot. Washington State and Oregon State will fall off a bit as their new reality sets in, but for 2024 I would expect them to be solid and the rest of the MWC was already pretty tough on their own.

I agree with this assessment, especially when taking the off-season so far into account. In terms of Transfers and coaching Hires the MWC is looking really good so far overall. The other advantage they have will be scheduling thanks to the agreement with OSU and Wazzu since as I understand it, both are still considered P5 programs. If Boise in particular can win 2 out of the 3 games vs Oregon, OSU and Wazzu they will be the favorite to make the playoff.

Why would they be considered P5 programs?

(01-26-2024 09:52 PM)thespywhozaggedme Wrote:  

(01-09-2024 10:47 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  Good thread as we stare into the void until week zero.

I'll say Boise. Malachi Nelson was a huge get and they have the Oregon game to impress. I think they could potentially absorb a loss and get in, provided they can beat Oregon (not a guarantee at all of course.)

Your post contradicts itself. You said that they could absorb a loss, and then you said “provided they beat Oregon“. Why can’t Oregon be that loss that they absorb? If they lose a close one in Eugene and run the table, they will be in.

Just Joe's take that with a win over Oregon, Boise could absorb a loss elsewhere is clearly not a contradiction. He's just setting the height of the bar to clear as the best Go5 champion higher than you are.

(01-25-2024 12:42 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 12:40 PM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:24 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

Must have missed the Bowl Season.

Does bowl season even count anymore? All the prima donna's sitting out and transferring at the last minute.

IMO, bowl season is still relevant, especially at the G5 level, where you don't have nearly as many guys sitting out for NFL reasons. You don't get situations like FSU vs Georgia, where FSU's team was drastically different from the team that played the regular season, and Georgia was missing a lot of talent too.

(01-30-2024 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 12:42 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 12:40 PM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:24 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

Must have missed the Bowl Season.

Does bowl season even count anymore? All the prima donna's sitting out and transferring at the last minute.

IMO, bowl season is still relevant, especially at the G5 level, where you don't have nearly as many guys sitting out for NFL reasons. You don't get situations like FSU vs Georgia, where FSU's team was drastically different from the team that played the regular season, and Georgia was missing a lot of talent too.

There were G5 teams with a lot of guys sitting out or transferring. Hell we had most of our OL out and we started a Freshman QB. Our running back sat out the entire second half. We had something like 11 starters not play, and to be fair UTSA was in the same situation. It was two entirely different teams than what played during the regular season.

(01-25-2024 12:42 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  Does bowl season even count anymore?

Count for what? They mostly stopped "really" counting for deciding the national title once all the major conferences were in the BCS, and the CFP consolidated that.

Mind, I grew up in Big Ten country, and while I would not have been aware at the time, when I first started paying attention to college football, it was Rose Bowl Or Bust for Big Ten schools. In the eighties we got to go to a bowl game without winning a championship, but they were mostly just exhibition games and a last chance to see our team play before the long wait for the next season to start.

So "CFP12 or an exhibition game with no national title relevance" feels quite natural to me.

Quote: All the prima donna's sitting out and transferring at the last minute.

But Vols fans got to see Nico play. I hear that unlike the previous QB, he cannot throw it all the way to the moon, but it looks like he might be able to throw it to an open receiver, and can make some yards on the ground if no receiver is open, which seems a bit more important to me.

And if the Cotton Bowl shook some extra change loose for Buckeye NIL collectives to bring back all of those draft-eligible juniors on that already very good Buckeye defense, that'd be a good effect of the bowl game as well.

(01-25-2024 09:32 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:24 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

Regardless of whether this comes to fruition or not, I smiled when I saw this. I don't think people understand how wild it is for the Sun Belt to rise up from the bottom of the FBS to where it is now in the last decade.

Imagine what we could do if we made as much money as the AAC or MWC.

Similarly, what if the AAC athletics programs collectively spent, relatively and proportionately speaking, on football and men's hoops what the Sun Belt athletics programs spend on football (a lot) and on men's basketball (very little)? Maybe that is happening now but I'm just wondering.

In other words, what if each AAC schools decided to strongly focus on football and minimize focus on men's hoops? If that hypothetically were to happen, I do feel (and maybe I'm being naive) that AAC football would improve some across the board. Though maybe not much.

I read somewhere that the annual budgets, collectively, for Belt men's hoops were, on average, less than $2 million. That might be outdated info, however.

(01-30-2024 01:24 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 09:32 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:24 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

Regardless of whether this comes to fruition or not, I smiled when I saw this. I don't think people understand how wild it is for the Sun Belt to rise up from the bottom of the FBS to where it is now in the last decade.

Imagine what we could do if we made as much money as the AAC or MWC.

Similarly, what if the AAC athletics programs collectively spent, relatively and proportionately speaking, on football and men's hoops what the Sun Belt athletics programs spend on football (a lot) and on men's basketball (very little)? Maybe that is happening now but I'm just wondering.

In other words, what if each AAC schools decided to strongly focus on football and minimize focus on men's hoops? If that hypothetically were to happen, I do feel (and maybe I'm being naive) that AAC football would improve some across the board. Thought maybe not much.

I read somewhere that the annual budgets, collectively, for Belt men's hoops were, on average, less than $2 million. That might be outdated info, however.

Yeah but money doesn't always bring in the W's. You have to have schools with a history and a culture of winning and expectations to win. Look at little ol Marshall with 12k students in one of the poorest states in the country... but we have a culture of winning and our fans and alumni expect to win. Same with Appalachian State. The AAC schools are already spending tons more than we are in football, but the wins aren't there except for a few of them.

(01-30-2024 01:24 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 09:32 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:24 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

Regardless of whether this comes to fruition or not, I smiled when I saw this. I don't think people understand how wild it is for the Sun Belt to rise up from the bottom of the FBS to where it is now in the last decade.

Imagine what we could do if we made as much money as the AAC or MWC.

Similarly, what if the AAC athletics programs collectively spent, relatively and proportionately speaking, on football and men's hoops what the Sun Belt athletics programs spend on football (a lot) and on men's basketball (very little)? Maybe that is happening now but I'm just wondering.

In other words, what if each AAC schools decided to strongly focus on football and minimize focus on men's hoops? If that hypothetically were to happen, I do feel (and maybe I'm being naive) that AAC football would improve some across the board. Thought maybe not much.

I read somewhere that the annual budgets, collectively, for Belt men's hoops were, on average, less than $2 million. That might be outdated info, however.

I think that number is roughly correct. JMU, ODU, and Marshall have increased the average though. I think the AAC is currently outspending the SBC when looking strictly at football as well, though the gap is much smaller. If the AAC took the 3-4 mil they spend on hoops and poured it into football I am not sure how large of a difference it would make. The P4 is still going to poach your coaches, players, and refuse to schedule you at your place (for the most part). I guess what I am saying is, once you are spending more than the rest of the G5 then there are diminishing returns unless you spend as much as the P4, which is something few remaining G5s have the ability to do.

(01-30-2024 01:45 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(01-30-2024 01:24 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 09:32 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:24 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

Regardless of whether this comes to fruition or not, I smiled when I saw this. I don't think people understand how wild it is for the Sun Belt to rise up from the bottom of the FBS to where it is now in the last decade.

Imagine what we could do if we made as much money as the AAC or MWC.

Similarly, what if the AAC athletics programs collectively spent, relatively and proportionately speaking, on football and men's hoops what the Sun Belt athletics programs spend on football (a lot) and on men's basketball (very little)? Maybe that is happening now but I'm just wondering.

In other words, what if each AAC schools decided to strongly focus on football and minimize focus on men's hoops? If that hypothetically were to happen, I do feel (and maybe I'm being naive) that AAC football would improve some across the board. Thought maybe not much.

I read somewhere that the annual budgets, collectively, for Belt men's hoops were, on average, less than $2 million. That might be outdated info, however.

Yeah but money doesn't always bring in the W's. You have to have schools with a history and a culture of winning and expectations to win. Look at little ol Marshall with 12k students in one of the poorest states in the country... but we have a culture of winning and our fans and alumni expect to win. Same with Appalachian State. The AAC schools are already spending tons more than we are in football, but the wins aren't there except for a few of them.

Marshall and AppState do a great job.

There are some all-sports AAC programs that have decent histories/traditions in football (specifically, East Carolina, USF, Memphis, Tulane, Tulsa and North Texas). I have no idea if their need to spend as much as they do on men's hoops (a figure that I understand is considerably more than the average spent by Belt men's hoops programs) hampers, to an extent, their football efforts.

I'm simply wondering.

(01-30-2024 08:13 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(01-29-2024 08:26 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(01-26-2024 09:31 AM)freshtop Wrote:  EDIT: As far as the graphic is concerned. If we are assuming that the PAC2 and MWC are considered a single conference then I think they occupy that number 5 spot. Washington State and Oregon State will fall off a bit as their new reality sets in, but for 2024 I would expect them to be solid and the rest of the MWC was already pretty tough on their own.

I agree with this assessment, especially when taking the off-season so far into account. In terms of Transfers and coaching Hires the MWC is looking really good so far overall. The other advantage they have will be scheduling thanks to the agreement with OSU and Wazzu since as I understand it, both are still considered P5 programs. If Boise in particular can win 2 out of the 3 games vs Oregon, OSU and Wazzu they will be the favorite to make the playoff.

Why would they be considered P5 programs?

Because according to my understanding the PAC2 are receiving the P5 level of CFB payments until 2026 , also by not fully merging with the MWC they aren't officially G5 programs yet. Similar to how BYU was considered a P5 opponent while being INDY.

Some pre-season rankings

American

1) Tulane
2) Memphis
3) USF
4) UTSA

https://collegefootballnetwork.com/2024-...-rankings/

MWC pre-season rankings

1) Boise State
2) UNLV
3) Fresno State
4) Utah State

https://collegefootballnetwork.com/2024-...-rankings/