Could the AAC&Army and the MWC&BYU work together for bowls and pool their bowls to get the best P5 Bowl matchups?
(Access Bowl stays the same as the highest ranked G5 vs P5)
Instead of the Las Vegas Bowl getting the top MWC team and the AAC best going to the Birmingham or Miami Bowls, how about the tie ins for the best bowls look like Big 10/Big 12/PAC 10 #4-6 vs the best of the MWC/AAC/Army/BYU in the Las Vegas, Armed Forces, Military, Hawaii every year? Maybe the PAC/Big 10/Big 12 bite knowing they have 26 schools from Hawaii to Uconn to pick from? Just an idea. Any thoughts on bowl pooling for better bowl matchups? Better for the MWC and AAC; better for the bowls.

Cheers!

No, I think the current bowl arrangements were designed to keep the G5 from playing good P5 teams. Right now the G5 sends their best teams to play the worst teams from the P5. That's a win win for the P5. If they lose, it's a 5-7 to 7-5 team playing a team with 9-11 wins. If they win it means the best of the G5 can't compete with the worst of the P5.

So no. The P5 are not interested in anything that might resemble a fair matchup for the G5.

(02-24-2017 11:10 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  No, I think the current bowl arrangements were designed to keep the G5 from playing good P5 teams. Right now the G5 sends their best teams to play the worst teams from the P5. That's a win win for the P5. If they lose, it's a 5-7 to 7-5 team playing a team with 9-11 wins. If they win it means the best of the G5 can't compete with the worst of the P5.

So no. The P5 are not interested in anything that might resemble a fair matchup for the G5.

Your probably right. There was a bowl featuring two P5 teams (ACC 6-6 vs SEC 6-6) that had 18k. Take out one of those and put Navy or Memphis in it and it would have gotten double the attendance.. There was a bowl in San Francisco that had a PAC #4 vs Big 10 #6 match up that got barely 20k. Take out Utah and put in Boise or BYU and it would have gotten at least 35k. Some of these are just common sense moves to make the bowls more interesting.

Cheers!

(02-24-2017 11:10 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  No, I think the current bowl arrangements were designed to keep the G5 from playing good P5 teams. Right now the G5 sends their best teams to play the worst teams from the P5. That's a win win for the P5. If they lose, it's a 5-7 to 7-5 team playing a team with 9-11 wins. If they win it means the best of the G5 can't compete with the worst of the P5.

So no. The P5 are not interested in anything that might resemble a fair matchup for the G5.

I remember the Holiday Bowls I went to as a kid that featured Iowa vs WAC teams (Wyoming, BYU and SDSU) being packed. Bowls worked then. They aren't working when 6-6 teams with no history, appeal, common sense logic are matched up. The logic that a bowl that features a 6-6 Indiana vs a 7-5 Utah is appealing simply because it's PAC vs Big 10 is flawed.

Cheers!

If you want higher selections from the P5 as opponents for the top G5 champs you need do nothing more than pay them. Basically, the P5 line up thier post season ties on the basis of payouts. Pay enough--and they will sign onto to that bowl.

I think it depends on which G5 school. Boise State prove that they can beat the best P5 programs.

(02-24-2017 11:40 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Your probably right. There was a bowl featuring two P5 teams (ACC 6-6 vs SEC 6-6) that had 18k. Take out one of those and put Navy or Memphis in it and it would have gotten double the attendance.. There was a bowl in San Francisco that had a PAC #4 vs Big 10 #6 match up that got barely 20k. Take out Utah and put in Boise or BYU and it would have gotten at least 35k. Some of these are just common sense moves to make the bowls more interesting.

Cheers!

Are you referencing the Independence Bowl? Box score attendance in Shreveport was 28,000. Louisiana Tech or Arkansas State may have put even more fans in that stadium than the two AAC schools you referenced.

(02-25-2017 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you want higher selections from the P5 as opponents for the top G5 champs you need do nothing more than pay them. Basically, the P5 line up thier post season ties on the basis of payouts. Pay enough--and they will sign onto to that bowl.

Maybe.

Are P5 administrators beyond the snobbery of playing G5 conferences in bowl games?

Pitching the G4 champs into a bowl series is a point where everyone's interest is mutual where enough TV interest is created.

(02-25-2017 12:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you want higher selections from the P5 as opponents for the top G5 champs you need do nothing more than pay them. Basically, the P5 line up thier post season ties on the basis of payouts. Pay enough--and they will sign onto to that bowl.

Maybe.

Are P5 administrators beyond the snobbery of playing G5 conferences in bowl games?

Pitching the G4 champs into a bowl series is a point where everyone's interest is mutual where enough TV interest is created.

Ironically that's really not it at all. The issue is G-5's don't want to play each other. All other levels of football are content with playing each other except the g-5. They think they deserve to play p-5 schools even though the p-5's probably don't. Like a fat girl at the prom somebody has to get stuck with them.

I say fine let's do that as well as allow g-5 vs FCS bowls. Games like Montana vs Wyoming would be fun.

The issue here is the g-5.

(02-25-2017 01:01 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you want higher selections from the P5 as opponents for the top G5 champs you need do nothing more than pay them. Basically, the P5 line up thier post season ties on the basis of payouts. Pay enough--and they will sign onto to that bowl.

Maybe.

Are P5 administrators beyond the snobbery of playing G5 conferences in bowl games?

Pitching the G4 champs into a bowl series is a point where everyone's interest is mutual where enough TV interest is created.

Ironically that's really not it at all. The issue is G-5's don't want to play each other. All other levels of football are content with playing each other except the g-5. They think they deserve to play p-5 schools even though the p-5's probably don't. Like a fat girl at the prom somebody has to get stuck with them.

I say fine let's do that as well as allow g-5 vs FCS bowls. Games like Montana vs Wyoming would be fun.

The issue here is the g-5.

The G4 would all send their champs to different bowls with what I'm talking about.

A bowl series of 6 games (Holiday, Sun, Alamo, Liberty, Gator, Outback) that would have the G4 champs play a non-CFP P5 school.

Then require 8 wins for a bowl to cut out the second tier bowls. The G5 could pool for some additional games or strike a few high profit locations like Mobile or Las Vegas for example.

(02-25-2017 01:01 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you want higher selections from the P5 as opponents for the top G5 champs you need do nothing more than pay them. Basically, the P5 line up thier post season ties on the basis of payouts. Pay enough--and they will sign onto to that bowl.

Maybe.

Are P5 administrators beyond the snobbery of playing G5 conferences in bowl games?

Pitching the G4 champs into a bowl series is a point where everyone's interest is mutual where enough TV interest is created.

Ironically that's really not it at all. The issue is G-5's don't want to play each other. All other levels of football are content with playing each other except the g-5. They think they deserve to play p-5 schools even though the p-5's probably don't. Like a fat girl at the prom somebody has to get stuck with them.

I say fine let's do that as well as allow g-5 vs FCS bowls. Games like Montana vs Wyoming would be fun.

The issue here is the g-5.

Except G5 and P5 are the same level of football.

To get a top P5, you will need to pay around +2.5 Mill. Not sure how a G5 conference could sustain such a guaranteed 6 year pay out. At that price you are only matching current bowls and need them not to increase payout. The bottom P5 typically get +1 million payout. Even with the AAC having the old Big East buyout, I don't know if is feasible. How many more years are left on that money payout?

(02-25-2017 01:01 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you want higher selections from the P5 as opponents for the top G5 champs you need do nothing more than pay them. Basically, the P5 line up thier post season ties on the basis of payouts. Pay enough--and they will sign onto to that bowl.

Maybe.

Are P5 administrators beyond the snobbery of playing G5 conferences in bowl games?

Pitching the G4 champs into a bowl series is a point where everyone's interest is mutual where enough TV interest is created.

Ironically that's really not it at all. The issue is G-5's don't want to play each other. All other levels of football are content with playing each other except the g-5. They think they deserve to play p-5 schools even though the p-5's probably don't. Like a fat girl at the prom somebody has to get stuck with them.

I say fine let's do that as well as allow g-5 vs FCS bowls. Games like Montana vs Wyoming would be fun.

The issue here is the g-5.

Maybe because the "G5" level is a totally made up "level". There is FBS and FCS in D1 football. There is no G5 division. It would be like playing in the "non-kingpin-level"---which includes every FBS school other than maybe a dozen or so super programs. Frankly, that's pretty much what it is now. Has a non-kingpin school won the National Championship in the last 2 or 3 decades?

So, take the top 13 super programs and have them play a 12 game round robin in the Super FBS division. The rest of FBS will continue compete in the old FBS division.

(02-25-2017 03:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:01 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you want higher selections from the P5 as opponents for the top G5 champs you need do nothing more than pay them. Basically, the P5 line up thier post season ties on the basis of payouts. Pay enough--and they will sign onto to that bowl.

Maybe.

Are P5 administrators beyond the snobbery of playing G5 conferences in bowl games?

Pitching the G4 champs into a bowl series is a point where everyone's interest is mutual where enough TV interest is created.

Ironically that's really not it at all. The issue is G-5's don't want to play each other. All other levels of football are content with playing each other except the g-5. They think they deserve to play p-5 schools even though the p-5's probably don't. Like a fat girl at the prom somebody has to get stuck with them.

I say fine let's do that as well as allow g-5 vs FCS bowls. Games like Montana vs Wyoming would be fun.

The issue here is the g-5.

Maybe because the "G5" level is a totally made up "level". There is FBS and FCS in D1 football. There is no G5 division. It would be like playing in the "non-kingpin-level"---which includes every FBS school other than maybe a dozen super programs. Frankly, that's pretty much what it is now. Has a non-kingpin school won the National Championship in the last 2 or 3 decades?

Exactly.G5 is not a division. It's an ESPN invented label I'd rather the AAC play P5/MWC/Army/BYU schools in the Bowls or I could say it like this: I don't want to play any MAC schools in the Bowls and am ok with a couple of teams that reside in CUSA and one in the SB for the Bowls.

Cheers!

(02-25-2017 02:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  To get a top P5, you will need to pay around +2.5 Mill. Not sure how a G5 conference could sustain such a guaranteed 6 year pay out. At that price you are only matching current bowls and need them not to increase payout. The bottom P5 typically get +1 million payout. Even with the AAC having the old Big East buyout, I don't know if is feasible. How many more years are left on that money payout?

How hard would it really be? Why would such a bowl not pay for itself just as any current bowl paying 2-3 million? At the very least, such a bowl would cover the vast majority of its expenses leaving the G5 conference that owns it to simply cover the small loss (if any). So, if the AAC just set aside 50% it "performance" portion of the conferences CFP G5 payout, it would have a have about 13 million dollar fund in 3 years (assuming it averages the second place pay out over that time period). I would think that's more than enough to financially support a high payout for the Miami Beach Bowl in the next bowl cycle.

It's not a lack of funds stopping the idea. It's a lack of vision.

(02-25-2017 02:28 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:01 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you want higher selections from the P5 as opponents for the top G5 champs you need do nothing more than pay them. Basically, the P5 line up thier post season ties on the basis of payouts. Pay enough--and they will sign onto to that bowl.

Maybe.

Are P5 administrators beyond the snobbery of playing G5 conferences in bowl games?

Pitching the G4 champs into a bowl series is a point where everyone's interest is mutual where enough TV interest is created.

Ironically that's really not it at all. The issue is G-5's don't want to play each other. All other levels of football are content with playing each other except the g-5. They think they deserve to play p-5 schools even though the p-5's probably don't. Like a fat girl at the prom somebody has to get stuck with them.

I say fine let's do that as well as allow g-5 vs FCS bowls. Games like Montana vs Wyoming would be fun.

The issue here is the g-5.

Except G5 and P5 are the same level of football.

Not really.

There is a reason we have those names and the g-5 is not playing for the same trophy as the p-5.

(02-25-2017 06:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 02:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  To get a top P5, you will need to pay around +2.5 Mill. Not sure how a G5 conference could sustain such a guaranteed 6 year pay out. At that price you are only matching current bowls and need them not to increase payout. The bottom P5 typically get +1 million payout. Even with the AAC having the old Big East buyout, I don't know if is feasible. How many more years are left on that money payout?

How hard would it really be? Why would such a bowl not pay for itself just as any current bowl paying 2-3 million? At the very least, such a bowl would cover the vast majority of its expenses leaving the G5 conference that owns it to simply cover the small loss (if any). So, if the AAC just set aside 50% it "performance" portion of the conferences CFP G5 payout, it would have a have about 13 million dollar fund in 3 years (assuming it averages the second place pay out over that time period). I would think that's more than enough to financially support a high payout for the Miami Beach Bowl in the next bowl cycle.

It's not a lack of funds stopping the idea. It's a lack of vision.

AC, i don't disagree with you about lack vision. But unless the G5 conference are going to take less of a payoff, that is a 5 million payout for the bowl. In addition, how many G5's are willing to not take extra money for their budget then pool in in as a resource? Houston should be a P5 team and I really wish the ACC would take them as the 16th if ND ever joined. I think the Texas/Houston market would be a boon for the ACC and the ACC a great fit for Houston. Then again, I said the about Louisville since the 90's. Who knows, maybe it will happen again one day.

(02-25-2017 03:39 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 03:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:01 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you want higher selections from the P5 as opponents for the top G5 champs you need do nothing more than pay them. Basically, the P5 line up thier post season ties on the basis of payouts. Pay enough--and they will sign onto to that bowl.

Maybe.

Are P5 administrators beyond the snobbery of playing G5 conferences in bowl games?

Pitching the G4 champs into a bowl series is a point where everyone's interest is mutual where enough TV interest is created.

Ironically that's really not it at all. The issue is G-5's don't want to play each other. All other levels of football are content with playing each other except the g-5. They think they deserve to play p-5 schools even though the p-5's probably don't. Like a fat girl at the prom somebody has to get stuck with them.

I say fine let's do that as well as allow g-5 vs FCS bowls. Games like Montana vs Wyoming would be fun.

The issue here is the g-5.

Maybe because the "G5" level is a totally made up "level". There is FBS and FCS in D1 football. There is no G5 division. It would be like playing in the "non-kingpin-level"---which includes every FBS school other than maybe a dozen super programs. Frankly, that's pretty much what it is now. Has a non-kingpin school won the National Championship in the last 2 or 3 decades?

Exactly.G5 is not a division. It's an ESPN invented label I'd rather the AAC play P5/MWC/Army/BYU schools in the Bowls or I could say it like this: I don't want to play any MAC schools in the Bowls and am ok with a couple of teams that reside in CUSA and one in the SB for the Bowls.

Cheers!

Its ok, to be afraid of MAC Schools....... Just ask Temple.

(02-25-2017 09:04 PM)utpotts Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 03:39 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 03:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 01:01 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 12:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Maybe.

Are P5 administrators beyond the snobbery of playing G5 conferences in bowl games?

Pitching the G4 champs into a bowl series is a point where everyone's interest is mutual where enough TV interest is created.

Ironically that's really not it at all. The issue is G-5's don't want to play each other. All other levels of football are content with playing each other except the g-5. They think they deserve to play p-5 schools even though the p-5's probably don't. Like a fat girl at the prom somebody has to get stuck with them.

I say fine let's do that as well as allow g-5 vs FCS bowls. Games like Montana vs Wyoming would be fun.

The issue here is the g-5.

Maybe because the "G5" level is a totally made up "level". There is FBS and FCS in D1 football. There is no G5 division. It would be like playing in the "non-kingpin-level"---which includes every FBS school other than maybe a dozen super programs. Frankly, that's pretty much what it is now. Has a non-kingpin school won the National Championship in the last 2 or 3 decades?

Exactly.G5 is not a division. It's an ESPN invented label I'd rather the AAC play P5/MWC/Army/BYU schools in the Bowls or I could say it like this: I don't want to play any MAC schools in the Bowls and am ok with a couple of teams that reside in CUSA and one in the SB for the Bowls.

Cheers!

Its ok, to be afraid of MAC Schools....... Just ask Temple.

What scares me about the MAC is the number of games with less than 5k fans. I saw one a couple of years ago with 2,700 fans. Than't crazy

(02-25-2017 08:53 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 06:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-25-2017 02:44 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  To get a top P5, you will need to pay around +2.5 Mill. Not sure how a G5 conference could sustain such a guaranteed 6 year pay out. At that price you are only matching current bowls and need them not to increase payout. The bottom P5 typically get +1 million payout. Even with the AAC having the old Big East buyout, I don't know if is feasible. How many more years are left on that money payout?

How hard would it really be? Why would such a bowl not pay for itself just as any current bowl paying 2-3 million? At the very least, such a bowl would cover the vast majority of its expenses leaving the G5 conference that owns it to simply cover the small loss (if any). So, if the AAC just set aside 50% it "performance" portion of the conferences CFP G5 payout, it would have a have about 13 million dollar fund in 3 years (assuming it averages the second place pay out over that time period). I would think that's more than enough to financially support a high payout for the Miami Beach Bowl in the next bowl cycle.

It's not a lack of funds stopping the idea. It's a lack of vision.

AC, i don't disagree with you about lack vision. But unless the G5 conference are going to take less of a payoff, that is a 5 million payout for the bowl. In addition, how many G5's are willing to not take extra money for their budget then pool in in as a resource? Houston should be a P5 team and I really wish the ACC would take them as the 16th if ND ever joined. I think the Texas/Houston market would be a boon for the ACC and the ACC a great fit for Houston. Then again, I said the about Louisville since the 90's. Who knows, maybe it will happen again one day.

Why not take a smaller pay off? What difference does it really make? What I'm suggesting is we bump up the Miami Beach Bowl payoff. Since we own the bowl---we are really just paying ourselves. The reality is the AAC "payoff" is the bowl profit.

The assumption seems to be we will lose money. But if we are what we claim to be--there is no reason to believe a bowl pitting our champ (probably ranked) against the top P5 team not in a CFP sponsored game would not make money. Why not gamble on ourselves? Build a successful upper tier bowl over the last 6 years of the current CFP might just be the key to being a contract conference next time around.