(04-01-2015 02:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't see what Army has to do with it, either.
We may just have to agree to disagree. I don't think the Wake AD's word point to any increase in home-home contracts between P5 and G5 schools.
The fact that P5 teams are making their bowl games P5 vs. P5 matches points towards a potentially inevitable end where a P5 team plays only two or perhaps one game a year versus a G5 team (as the 'warm-up" game) and the rest versus other P5 teams.

Don't forget though that P5's don't want to go into Bowl games with a losing record. If P5's only played each other, then 1/2 would have winning records and 1/2 would have losing ones. That would only be about 32 schools covering ~16 bowl games (I think we're pushing 40 now). Further, the Big10 and SEC had 9 and 12 out of their 14 schools, resp. finish with > .500 records. Those extra wins had to come from somewhere.

I think a fair model would be for a P5 to play 8 Conf., 1 OOC P5, 2 G5's (H/H preferrably) and a 'buy' FCS game. Then we would be in a better position to compare apples to apples.

(04-01-2015 02:44 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Don't forget though that P5's don't want to go into Bowl games with a losing record. If P5's only played each other, then 1/2 would have winning records and 1/2 would have losing ones. That would only be about 32 schools covering ~16 bowl games (I think we're pushing 40 now). Further, the Big10 and SEC had 9 and 12 out of their 14 schools, resp. finish with > .500 records. Those extra wins had to come from somewhere.

I think a fair model would be for a P5 to play 8 Conf., 1 OOC P5, 2 G5's (H/H preferrably) and a 'buy' FCS game. Then we would be in a better position to compare apples to apples.

But it would be a lot easier to just play ten P5 teams, two G5 teams and lower the arbitrary, self-imposed requirement of winning six games to be bowl eligible.

Lower that to five games and you've suddenly got more eligible P5 teams to fill those bowl slots.

And it's not like anyone cares. Big whoopity-do if a 5-7 P5 team goes to a bowl game. Only its fan base and the other team's fan base are watching that game anyhow.

(04-01-2015 03:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But it would be a lot easier to just play ten P5 teams, two G5 teams and lower the arbitrary, self-imposed requirement of winning six games to be bowl eligible.

Lower that to five games and you've suddenly got more eligible P5 teams to fill those bowl slots.

And it's not like anyone cares. Big whoopity-do if a 5-7 P5 team goes to a bowl game. Only its fan base and the other team's fan base are watching that game anyhow.

ESPN would get better ratings for a minor bowl with 5-7 Michigan vs. 5-7 Florida than one with 9-3 Eastern Michigan vs. 9-3 Florida Atlantic. It's not "fair" that casual fans would watch the 5-7 teams in greater numbers, but it's reality.

I hope they don't open the door to 5-7 bowl teams, but it won't surprise me if they do.

(04-01-2015 03:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  ESPN would get better ratings for a minor bowl with 5-7 Michigan vs. 5-7 Florida than one with 9-3 Eastern Michigan vs. 9-3 Florida Atlantic. It's not "fair" that casual fans would watch the 5-7 teams in greater numbers, but it's reality.

I hope they don't open the door to 5-7 bowl teams, but it won't surprise me if they do.

Especially if those bowl games are P5 v P5 match-ups, per contract with P5 conferences.

(04-01-2015 01:04 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 12:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I had responded to a thread earlier but this seesm warranted for a separate discussion.


http://www.fbschedules.com/2015/03/wake-...schedules/

“The ACC athletic directors have agreed that each ACC school will play a football non-conference opponent from the SEC, Big 10, PAC 12, Big 12 or Notre Dame or BYU annually,” Wellman wrote.

Wellman also addressed the rising cost of one-time “buy” games and said that he prefers series instead.

“The financial guarantees that non-conference opponents are receiving today for “buy games” have doubled and tripled from just a few years ago. Therefore, it is more realistic to play a home- and- away series against quality opponents than to “buy” one-time games.”

Meaning there will be less 1 and done games from the Mid to low tier of P5 conferences. This will hurt the G5 schools that depend on the 1 and done money games.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but the part you bolded just seems to be a window dressing for what is nothing more than the already well understood decree from the ACC to play (at least) nine P5 teams per year.

As he says, they'll play the eight ACC conference games plus (at least) one team from the P5 (including Notre Dame and BYU).


And that comes from the fact that the ACC (and SEC) are forced to do this by the other P5 going to nine conference games.


This was all already understood.


I'm not understanding all the conversation on this thread about scheduling guarantee games and the G5.

My point is that there are going to be more of the 1-1 games with G5 teams than 1 and done G5 games regarding P5 schools who are on the lower to mid end of a conference.

Wake is just an example because their AD made a comment about the costs and the feasibility of those costs. It's why schools like Washington St, Oregon St or Wake...etc have now more 1-1 with G5 schools than the 1-done a few years ago.
Its a 2 prong observation.
1. The bigger $$ paid out by a P5 school for 1 and done isn't cost effective now for those schools. Normally, those lower P5 schools will now have to have a sold out stadium to be able to pay the G5 team $1.5+ million. In a few more years, other G5 teams will start approaching $2+ million.
2. Those G5 schools that need the 'money' games (1 and done) are going to be in more of a bind because they won't be able to get the same amount of $$ if the P5 team play at their stadium. Without the 'money' games, quite a few G5 programs won't be able to have their athletic programs survive.

Could be starting to see a schism betwee the blue blood P5s and the lower level P5s when it comes to full cost of attendence, buy games, etc.

Why would a smaller P5 school deciding to schedule fewer buy games cause friction with large p5 schools? That just means that the P5 schools that want buy games will be able to pay less for them.

(04-01-2015 02:11 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 01:19 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 01:04 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 12:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe I'm way off base here, but the part you bolded just seems to be a window dressing for what is nothing more than the already well understood decree from the ACC to play (at least) nine P5 teams per year.

As he says, they'll play the eight ACC conference games plus (at least) one team from the P5 (including Notre Dame and BYU).


And that comes from the fact that the ACC (and SEC) are forced to do this by the other P5 going to nine conference games.


This was all already understood.


I'm not understanding all the conversation on this thread about scheduling guarantee games and the G5.

My point is that there are going to be more of the 1-1 games with G5 teams than 1 and done G5 games regarding P5 schools who are on the lower to mid end of a conference.

Wake is just an example because their AD made a comment about the costs and the feasibility of those costs. It's why schools like Washington St, Oregon St or Wake...etc have now more 1-1 with G5 schools than the 1-done a few years ago.
Its a 2 prong observation.
1. The bigger $$ paid out by a P5 school for 1 and done isn't cost effective now for those schools. Normally, those lower P5 schools will now have to have a sold out stadium to be able to pay the G5 team $1.5+ million. In a few more years, other G5 teams will start approaching $2+ million.
2. Those G5 schools that need the 'money' games (1 and done) are going to be in more of a bind because they won't be able to get the same amount of $$ if the P5 team play at their stadium. Without the 'money' games, quite a few G5 programs won't be able to have their athletic programs survive.

Could be starting to see a schism betwee the blue blood P5s and the lower level P5s when it comes to full cost of attendence, buy games, etc.

That is a good point and forgot all about that.

We have a winner. The first sign of cannibalism in the p5. It has been begun. Get your popcorn

Once again why would a lower demand for G5 buy games cause problems between p5 schools?

(04-01-2015 02:44 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  [quote='MplsBison' pid='11945755' dateline='1427916364']
I don't see what Army has to do with it, either.
We may just have to agree to disagree. I don't think the Wake AD's word point to any increase in home-home contracts between P5 and G5 schools.
The fact that P5 teams are making their bowl games P5 vs. P5 matches points towards a potentially inevitable end where a P5 team plays only two or perhaps one game a year versus a G5 team (as the 'warm-up" game) and the rest versus other P5 teams.

Quote:Don't forget though that P5's don't want to go into Bowl games with a losing record.

If P5's only played each other, then 1/2 would have winning records and 1/2 would have losing ones. That would only be about 32 schools covering ~16 bowl games (I think we're pushing 40 now). Further, the Big10 and SEC had 9 and 12 out of their 14 schools, resp. finish with > .500 records. Those extra wins had to come from somewhere.

I think a fair model would be for a P5 to play 8 Conf., 1 OOC P5, 2 G5's (H/H preferrably) and a 'buy' FCS game. Then we would be in a better position to compare apples to apples.

Except for the very rare case were a 6-6 team has to play in a conference championship game and asks for a waiver so they can still go bowling, when would a P5 team go into a bowl game. At the point were a P5 team is 6-6, all they care about are the extra practices.

(04-01-2015 03:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  ESPN would get better ratings for a minor bowl with 5-7 Michigan vs. 5-7 Florida than one with 9-3 Eastern Michigan vs. 9-3 Florida Atlantic. It's not "fair" that casual fans would watch the 5-7 teams in greater numbers, but it's reality.
I hope they don't open the door to 5-7 bowl teams, but it won't surprise me if they do.

Yes, but a more likely scenario would be a 5-7 Purdue (#8 out of the B1G) v. a 5-7 Wake Forest (#7 out of the ACC) which would garner poor ratings and only go to reinforce the narrow difference between many P5 and G5 schools. Which I'm sure benefits none of the power players.

College football goes in cycles. Back in the late 60's and early 70's top division schools from the power group didn't play a lot of games against the non-power and everyone survived just fine, in fact many would call the early mid 70's a golden era for the MAC, cracked the ratings several times and had a great bowl tie.

(03-31-2015 10:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 06:24 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  This is nothing but spin and BS to make the ACC look good. Notre dame will play 5 ACC teams. Clemson/SCar, UGA/GT, UK/Louisville , FSU/Florida arleady play every year. So really, not much changes and the G5 money game rate continues to increase.

After all of the above was known and in place, Clemson signs a game with Ga Southern for over a million.

In summary, the quote means Wake and Duke are being discouraged from scheduling and losing to Troy and ULM etc.

Primarily because Clemson knows it can schedule the game with Georgia Southern, kick your ass and make a profit.


Clemson is in the ACC with Wake but Clemson is not Wake.

Buddy I watched that Clemson vs Wofford game a few years ago when Wofford was down 1 point late in the fourth. Wasn't much kickin ass and profiting in that game, lol.

I just hope they underestimate us like you appear to be doing.

(04-01-2015 04:35 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 06:24 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  This is nothing but spin and BS to make the ACC look good. Notre dame will play 5 ACC teams. Clemson/SCar, UGA/GT, UK/Louisville , FSU/Florida arleady play every year. So really, not much changes and the G5 money game rate continues to increase.

After all of the above was known and in place, Clemson signs a game with Ga Southern for over a million.

In summary, the quote means Wake and Duke are being discouraged from scheduling and losing to Troy and ULM etc.

Primarily because Clemson knows it can schedule the game with Georgia Southern, kick your ass and make a profit.


Clemson is in the ACC with Wake but Clemson is not Wake.

Buddy I watched that Clemson vs Wofford game a few years ago when Wofford was down 1 point late in the fourth. Wasn't much kickin ass and profiting in that game, lol.

I just hope they underestimate us like you appear to be doing.

That was in 2011. New DC, new OC's, totally new team in Clemson, and in the six games against non-P5 competition since that Wofford game the average margin of victory has been 39 points.

Wake just wants to play more P5 teams like Army. :)

(04-01-2015 04:07 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 03:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  ESPN would get better ratings for a minor bowl with 5-7 Michigan vs. 5-7 Florida than one with 9-3 Eastern Michigan vs. 9-3 Florida Atlantic. It's not "fair" that casual fans would watch the 5-7 teams in greater numbers, but it's reality.
I hope they don't open the door to 5-7 bowl teams, but it won't surprise me if they do.

Yes, but a more likely scenario would be a 5-7 Purdue (#8 out of the B1G) v. a 5-7 Wake Forest (#7 out of the ACC) which would garner poor ratings

Michigan was 5-7 in 2014. Florida was 4-8 in 2013. Nothing "unlikely" about it. If the bowls are allowed to take 5-7 teams to fill some vacancies, they're not going to take just any 5-7 team, they're going to choose the ones that deliver the best TV ratings. Because, again, it's not a conspiracy against anyone; the TV guys would be doing this to get ratings and make money, not to prove anyone's point about one team or another.

Additionally, bowl game TV ratings don't support your theory. Last season's most-watched bowl game between two non-P5 teams was Navy vs. San Diego State, watched by 2.46 million viewers. Every bowl game between two P5 teams drew more viewers than Navy-SDSU. All of them except three drew over a million viewers more than Navy-SDSU. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ .

(04-01-2015 05:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Michigan was 5-7 in 2014. Florida was 4-8 in 2013. Nothing "unlikely" about it. If the bowls are allowed to take 5-7 teams to fill some vacancies, they're not going to take just any 5-7 team, they're going to choose the ones that deliver the best TV ratings. Because, again, it's not a conspiracy against anyone; the TV guys would be doing this to get ratings and make money, not to prove anyone's point about one team or another.

Additionally, bowl game TV ratings don't support your theory. Last season's most-watched bowl game between two non-P5 teams was Navy vs. San Diego State, watched by 2.46 million viewers. Every bowl game between two P5 teams drew more viewers than Navy-SDSU. All of them except three drew over a million viewers more than Navy-SDSU. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ .

Last season there were 76 bowl slots (excluding the national championship game) and P5 + ND + BYU got 50 of them, in 29 different games. (hope I counted correctly)

Being that P5 + ND + BYU is only 66 teams, then only 33 teams would be eligible to fill slots if they only played themselves and maintained the six win minimum.


Thus it mathematically necessitates that the win minimum will be abolished, as the P5 schedule themselves exclusively in the regular season and those 29 games converge to 58 P5 teams.

(04-01-2015 05:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 04:35 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 06:24 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  This is nothing but spin and BS to make the ACC look good. Notre dame will play 5 ACC teams. Clemson/SCar, UGA/GT, UK/Louisville , FSU/Florida arleady play every year. So really, not much changes and the G5 money game rate continues to increase.

After all of the above was known and in place, Clemson signs a game with Ga Southern for over a million.

In summary, the quote means Wake and Duke are being discouraged from scheduling and losing to Troy and ULM etc.

Primarily because Clemson knows it can schedule the game with Georgia Southern, kick your ass and make a profit.


Clemson is in the ACC with Wake but Clemson is not Wake.

Buddy I watched that Clemson vs Wofford game a few years ago when Wofford was down 1 point late in the fourth. Wasn't much kickin ass and profiting in that game, lol.

I just hope they underestimate us like you appear to be doing.

That was in 2011. New DC, new OC's, totally new team in Clemson, and in the six games against non-P5 competition since that Wofford game the average margin of victory has been 39 points.

Oh, did I mention I watched the GT/Clemson game last year. Our offense torched GT last year in a game we had won until the ACC refs stepped in with the most ridiculous replay reversal ever.

(04-01-2015 07:24 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 05:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 04:35 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 06:24 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  This is nothing but spin and BS to make the ACC look good. Notre dame will play 5 ACC teams. Clemson/SCar, UGA/GT, UK/Louisville , FSU/Florida arleady play every year. So really, not much changes and the G5 money game rate continues to increase.

After all of the above was known and in place, Clemson signs a game with Ga Southern for over a million.

In summary, the quote means Wake and Duke are being discouraged from scheduling and losing to Troy and ULM etc.

Primarily because Clemson knows it can schedule the game with Georgia Southern, kick your ass and make a profit.


Clemson is in the ACC with Wake but Clemson is not Wake.

Buddy I watched that Clemson vs Wofford game a few years ago when Wofford was down 1 point late in the fourth. Wasn't much kickin ass and profiting in that game, lol.

I just hope they underestimate us like you appear to be doing.

That was in 2011. New DC, new OC's, totally new team in Clemson, and in the six games against non-P5 competition since that Wofford game the average margin of victory has been 39 points.

Oh, did I mention I watched the GT/Clemson game last year. Our offense torched GT last year in a game we had won until the ACC refs stepped in with the most ridiculous replay reversal ever.

Cool story bro.

Did you watch the GSU/NCSU game? I was at the NCSU/Clemson game and I'm pretty sure they are still trying to get the ball in the endzone. How did y'all fare against them?

Against GT we were driving and in field goal range when Watson went down with the knee injury. Our also injured backup QB stepped in the game an promptly threw a pick six. He threw another pick six later in the game as well, which means he contributed twelve of GT's 28 points. We held the vaunted GT offense to 353 total yards. They put up 536 on you.

(04-01-2015 05:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Michigan was 5-7 in 2014. Florida was 4-8 in 2013. Nothing "unlikely" about it. If the bowls are allowed to take 5-7 teams to fill some vacancies, they're not going to take just any 5-7 team, they're going to choose the ones that deliver the best TV ratings. Because, again, it's not a conspiracy against anyone; the TV guys would be doing this to get ratings and make money, not to prove anyone's point about one team or another.

Additionally, bowl game TV ratings don't support your theory. Last season's most-watched bowl game between two non-P5 teams was Navy vs. San Diego State, watched by 2.46 million viewers. Every bowl game between two P5 teams drew more viewers than Navy-SDSU. All of them except three drew over a million viewers more than Navy-SDSU. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ .

In reviewing your attached document (thanks for that) you quickly see that you're looking at time-slot and day of the week/time of the year as key viewing drivers which the P5 dominates (so you're not really comparing apples to apples in your analysis). There were also some very highly rated G5 v. P5 games but of course if you put a G5 game on at 2:00 pm on a weekday prior to X-mas you're viewership will be handicapped.

Point still remains that if you pit 2 sub .500 P5 schools in a bad time slot your not going to get the ratings, no matter who they are. So your oversimplification of P5 superiority does not include some very key variables.

(04-02-2015 11:21 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 05:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Michigan was 5-7 in 2014. Florida was 4-8 in 2013. Nothing "unlikely" about it. If the bowls are allowed to take 5-7 teams to fill some vacancies, they're not going to take just any 5-7 team, they're going to choose the ones that deliver the best TV ratings. Because, again, it's not a conspiracy against anyone; the TV guys would be doing this to get ratings and make money, not to prove anyone's point about one team or another.

Additionally, bowl game TV ratings don't support your theory. Last season's most-watched bowl game between two non-P5 teams was Navy vs. San Diego State, watched by 2.46 million viewers. Every bowl game between two P5 teams drew more viewers than Navy-SDSU. All of them except three drew over a million viewers more than Navy-SDSU. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ .

In reviewing your attached document (thanks for that) you quickly see that you're looking at time-slot and day of the week/time of the year as key viewing drivers which the P5 dominates (so you're not really comparing apples to apples in your analysis). There were also some very highly rated G5 v. P5 games but of course if you put a G5 game on at 2:00 pm on a weekday prior to X-mas you're viewership will be handicapped.

Point still remains that if you pit 2 sub .500 P5 schools in a bad time slot your not going to get the ratings, no matter who they are. So your oversimplification of P5 superiority does not include some very key variables.

It's not superiority, it's popularity. The point is that casual fans would watch, in greater numbers, a game between two big-name 5-7 teams even if, hypothetically, Marshall v. Northern Illinois had better teams. You can't explain it away with time slots. The game in the worst time slot on that list was the "San Francisco Bowl" that started at 10 pm Eastern time. It had 3.24 million viewers, more than any G5 v. G5 game, even though it started ridiculously late (for eastern viewers) and the participating teams (Maryland and Stanford) were both 7-5 and are not among the most popular programs (they ranked 46th and 48th in home attendance last year). And again, rightly or wrongly, more popular P5 teams would draw better ratings than Maryland-Stanford, even starting at 10 pm Eastern time. That's why ESPN would be happy to show 5-7 teams in bowl games (though I hope it doesn't happen).

(04-02-2015 11:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  It's not superiority, it's popularity. The point is that casual fans would watch, in greater numbers, a game between two big-name 5-7 teams even if, hypothetically, Marshall v. Northern Illinois had better teams. You can't explain it away with time slots. The game in the worst time slot on that list was the "San Francisco Bowl" that started at 10 pm Eastern time. It had 3.24 million viewers, more than any G5 v. G5 game, even though it started ridiculously late (for eastern viewers) and the participating teams (Maryland and Stanford) were both 7-5 and are not among the most popular programs (they ranked 46th and 48th in home attendance last year). And again, rightly or wrongly, more popular P5 teams would draw better ratings than Maryland-Stanford, even starting at 10 pm Eastern time. That's why ESPN would be happy to show 5-7 teams in bowl games (though I hope it doesn't happen).

Yes, popularity is a better word for what I was trying to say. Also, you have to agree there are more casual football viewers available during the more convenient time slots which would marginally close the variance between the two class of games if applied uniformally. Certainly the time slot is not a strong enough variable to completely overcome the popularity of marginal P5 bowl games even for the best G5 games, but to make a straight up comparison between G5 and P5 games w/o taking this important factor into account is not fair either.