(12-08-2018 01:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 12:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 10:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 09:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 05:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think it makes sense to allow more teams into the postseason though (I refuse to call 4 teams a playoff) since we really don't know who the best 4 teams are. A lot of people think they do, but it's just arrogance. There isn't enough information to go by. A team could be ranked 10th but still be one of the best 4 teams.

The NFL only has 32 teams, they play more games, they play more games outside their division AND they play equal numbers of home and road games. And even with that, they have way more than 4 teams in the playoffs. That is fair, and makes way more sense. FBS football is just dysfunctional in its current form.

Also, if Mississippi State can't get into the playoffs because their schedule is too hard, all they have to do is move to the AAC. I'm sure the AAC would accept them. Then they could play a weaker schedule and get into the playoffs.

It makes no sense to create a playoff system that rewards teams for moving down to softer conferences or playing softer schedules within their existing conferences, which is what these expanded proposals invariably do.

Also, the NFL and other pro leagues expand their playoffs not because it is competitively 'correct', they do it for money, so that's not a good yardstick. Even if it is, the NFL puts 12/32 teams in, for FBS to be equivalent, we'd need a 48-team playoff.

Ok. Lets say that happens---how is it any different from teams moving to a power conference because it gives them a huge leg up in financial resources to buy better coaches, better equipment, and better facilities? Its not. If Miss St wants to take a 48 million dollar pay cut for a 1-in-65 chance at a playoff bid---why would it matter? Heck, the best news would be if 25 or so P5 teams did it---wouldnt that effectively go a long way toward balancing the competitive difference you seem to be concerned about?

I am not concerned about the competitive difference as it currently exists. The playoffs should not be a vehicle for socialization or redistribution.

Playoffs should reflect the existing competitive situation. Conference within FBS are not the same in terms of competitive ability, some are catagorically better than others - A5 vs G5.

Exactly. But you dont rank conferences. You rank teams. That bias is a very real issue. Just as a great team can come out of bad division, a great team can exist in a weaker conference.

Right, so no playoff guarantees based on conferences. You just rank the teams regardless of conference, which is what the CFP does.

There has been "no real issue" with regard to bias in the CFP. The CFP rankings, despite being done by a committee stacked with P5 people, has produced essentially the same rankings as everyone else - other humans like the AP and Coaches polls, and the computers too. In all five years of the CFP, there has been remarkable agreement on who the most worthy playoff teams are, across both human and computer sources. Nearly unanimous.

So in that critical sense, nobody, P5 or G5, has been 'screwed' out of the playoffs. Now, if you want to say the playoffs should be larger, like 8 teams, then that's another issue, and then we'd have to look at the 8 teams ranked by the committee are to see if anyone got screwed by that process with that format.

But there is no bias. Nobody, P5 or G5, has been ranked outside the Top 4 the last five years who has any real gripe. The closest case is probably TCU in 2014, but even they were behind Ohio State in the polls and computers as well.

When the polls and computers say that team X is the #3 team, and they are left out anyway, then someone will have a gripe. E.g., the polls and computers are unanimous about UCF being the #7 or #8 team this year, so if UCF was left out of an 8-team playoff this year by the CFP, they'd have a real gripe, and that would be evidence of bias.

But out of the existing 4-team playoff? There are at least two, arguably three other teams, the teams ranked 5-6-7, that have more of a gripe than UCF, and I don't hear them griping.

(12-08-2018 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 01:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 12:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 10:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 09:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It makes no sense to create a playoff system that rewards teams for moving down to softer conferences or playing softer schedules within their existing conferences, which is what these expanded proposals invariably do.

Also, the NFL and other pro leagues expand their playoffs not because it is competitively 'correct', they do it for money, so that's not a good yardstick. Even if it is, the NFL puts 12/32 teams in, for FBS to be equivalent, we'd need a 48-team playoff.

Ok. Lets say that happens---how is it any different from teams moving to a power conference because it gives them a huge leg up in financial resources to buy better coaches, better equipment, and better facilities? Its not. If Miss St wants to take a 48 million dollar pay cut for a 1-in-65 chance at a playoff bid---why would it matter? Heck, the best news would be if 25 or so P5 teams did it---wouldnt that effectively go a long way toward balancing the competitive difference you seem to be concerned about?

I am not concerned about the competitive difference as it currently exists. The playoffs should not be a vehicle for socialization or redistribution.

Playoffs should reflect the existing competitive situation. Conference within FBS are not the same in terms of competitive ability, some are catagorically better than others - A5 vs G5.

Exactly. But you dont rank conferences. You rank teams. That bias is a very real issue. Just as a great team can come out of bad division, a great team can exist in a weaker conference.

Right, so no playoff guarantees based on conferences. You just rank the teams regardless of conference, which is what the CFP does.

There has been "no real issue" with regard to bias in the CFP. The CFP rankings, despite being done by a committee stacked with P5 people, has produced essentially the same rankings as everyone else - other humans like the AP and Coaches polls, and the computers too. In all five years of the CFP, there has been remarkable agreement on who the most worthy playoff teams are, across both human and computer sources. Nearly unanimous.

So in that critical sense, nobody, P5 or G5, has been 'screwed' out of the playoffs. Now, if you want to say the playoffs should be larger, like 8 teams, then that's another issue, and then we'd have to look at the 8 teams ranked by the committee are to see if anyone got screwed by that process with that format.

But there is no bias. Nobody, P5 or G5, has been ranked outside the Top 4 the last five years who has any real gripe. The closest case is probably TCU in 2014, but even they were behind Ohio State in the polls and computers as well.

When the polls and computers say that team X is the #3 team, and they are left out anyway, then someone will have a gripe. E.g., the polls and computers are unanimous about UCF being the #7 or #8 team this year, so if UCF was left out of an 8-team playoff this year by the CFP, they'd have a real gripe, and that would be evidence of bias.

But out of the existing 4-team playoff? There are at least two, arguably three other teams, the teams ranked 5-6-7, that have more of a gripe than UCF, and I don't hear them griping.

I want action on the field to define the bracket as much as possible. That way, we dont have to argue about bias. Im still lost as to why winning your way into a playoff is a problem---but a playoff (where you win your way to the next round) is not. Its the exact same concept---win or your out. Its a system where you have to win certain games or your out.

You like the selection committee system. Fine. I do not. Didnt like the idea from te very start.

That said---this tangent is far afield of the thread topic. So, Im going to leave that as my final comment on this somewhat unrelated spinoff debate.

(12-08-2018 11:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 01:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 12:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 10:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Ok. Lets say that happens---how is it any different from teams moving to a power conference because it gives them a huge leg up in financial resources to buy better coaches, better equipment, and better facilities? Its not. If Miss St wants to take a 48 million dollar pay cut for a 1-in-65 chance at a playoff bid---why would it matter? Heck, the best news would be if 25 or so P5 teams did it---wouldnt that effectively go a long way toward balancing the competitive difference you seem to be concerned about?

I am not concerned about the competitive difference as it currently exists. The playoffs should not be a vehicle for socialization or redistribution.

Playoffs should reflect the existing competitive situation. Conference within FBS are not the same in terms of competitive ability, some are catagorically better than others - A5 vs G5.

Exactly. But you dont rank conferences. You rank teams. That bias is a very real issue. Just as a great team can come out of bad division, a great team can exist in a weaker conference.

Right, so no playoff guarantees based on conferences. You just rank the teams regardless of conference, which is what the CFP does.

There has been "no real issue" with regard to bias in the CFP. The CFP rankings, despite being done by a committee stacked with P5 people, has produced essentially the same rankings as everyone else - other humans like the AP and Coaches polls, and the computers too. In all five years of the CFP, there has been remarkable agreement on who the most worthy playoff teams are, across both human and computer sources. Nearly unanimous.

So in that critical sense, nobody, P5 or G5, has been 'screwed' out of the playoffs. Now, if you want to say the playoffs should be larger, like 8 teams, then that's another issue, and then we'd have to look at the 8 teams ranked by the committee are to see if anyone got screwed by that process with that format.

But there is no bias. Nobody, P5 or G5, has been ranked outside the Top 4 the last five years who has any real gripe. The closest case is probably TCU in 2014, but even they were behind Ohio State in the polls and computers as well.

When the polls and computers say that team X is the #3 team, and they are left out anyway, then someone will have a gripe. E.g., the polls and computers are unanimous about UCF being the #7 or #8 team this year, so if UCF was left out of an 8-team playoff this year by the CFP, they'd have a real gripe, and that would be evidence of bias.

But out of the existing 4-team playoff? There are at least two, arguably three other teams, the teams ranked 5-6-7, that have more of a gripe than UCF, and I don't hear them griping.

I want action on the field to define the bracket as much as possible. That way, we dont have to argue about bias. Im still lost as to why winning your way into a playoff is a problem---but a playoff (where you win your way to the next round) is not.

I'm fine with a win and in if we are talking about conferences that are categorically commensurate - like among the P5 or among the G5, but it makes no sense for a team to play a G5 schedule and on the basis of that, be entered in to a P5 playoff.

Winning a bunch of games against G5 teams does not mean you have won your way to the right to play against Alabama and Clemson, any more than James Madison winning a bunch of FCS games would mean they have earned the right to play UCF or Houston in a playoff.

(12-08-2018 09:11 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 04:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I also think your proposal is somewhat, I don't know what best word is, deceptive? Maybe that is too pejorative, but in effect it leverages the entire G5 for what would mostly be to the benefit of the AAC. The AAC is the best G5 conference, and has received the Access Bowl bid 3 of the 5 years now. The MWC would also benefit somewhat, as it is the second best G5 conference - had UCF not rallied from 17 points down at the half last weekend, the AAC and MWC would each have 2 of the Access Bowl bids in the five years of the CFP.

But assuming that the AAC is likely to have the best G5 team about 60% of the time, that means the AAC will probably put a team in the playoffs more years than not. In contrast, the Sun Belt, CUSA, and MAC likely never would.

I'm struggling to work out your math in proving that the Sun Belt, CUSA and MAC would never get a team in, if the two scenarios for this season set it at 3 AAC / 1 MWC out of 5 versus 2 AAC / 2 MWC out of 5.

It's almost as if what is conjectured to be for all practical purposes impossible ... the highest ranked of the Go5 coming from the CUSA or SBC or MAC ... has actually already happened after a mere 5 trials of the experiment.

It's rather more likely that if the AAC gets in 60% of the time, 20% of the time it's the MWC stepping in when the AAC stumbles and 20% of the time it's one of the other three. And if the AAC was on the knife's edge of being left out this year, then it might be more realistic to count that as the AAC 50% of the time, 25% of the time the MWC stepping in and 25% of the time one of the other three.

Well, I didn't say that no SB/CUSA/MAC team would ever get in. I said each would have about a 1% chance of getting in per year. That's a 3% chance of one of them getting in each year, a 1/33 chance. That's hardly "practically impossible". Those kinds of things happen every day just around your house.

So yes, I'm assuming that it is somewhat fluky that a MAC team has gotten in during the 5 years of the CFP. On the other hand, the SB and CUSA have not put any in.

Bottom line is, even if we assume I am wrong and that the distribution is more along the lines of what has actually happened - 60% AAC, 20% MWC, 20% CUSA/SB/MAC, as that works out to about a 6.7% chance of the CUSA, MAC, or SB putting a team in the playoffs, I don't see how they have much incentive to support it, when the overwhelming benefits will go to the AAC and to a lesser extent the MWC. You might reply with "well, 7% is better than 0% as it is now", but there is one benefit to the status quo, which is that it does keep the AAC and MWC in the fold with the other G5. There are probably psychic and tangible benefits to that - which is precisely why the AAC is trying to separate itself from the other G5 and this rubs the other G5 the wrong way.

So IMO, a 7% chance isn't enough for the SB to endorse a system that is much more likely to end up with them losing more status (as the AAC and MWC separate) within the current system.

(12-08-2018 03:35 AM)micahandme Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 05:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Look, here's my take on this G5 playoff crap. Your essentially suggesting the G5 champs face off against one another. Those games are there to be had RIGHT NOW. There are 4 G5 champs with no real attractive post season bowl destination. If these games are so valuable--you have to wonder why no network has stepped forward and offered big money to create a couple of G5 champ v G5 champ bowls?

Because there isn't a TROPHY at the end of the day. Again, who cares who wins the "Boca Raton Bowl"? I'm a Penn State fan, and I have ZERO interest in wearing a "Fiesta Bowl Champs" t-shirt. Who cares? It was a fun bowl game last year...it gave us a top 10 finish and an 11-2 season...it kept PSU undefeated in the Fiesta all-time...but who cares? It was just a game.

When you have a tournament--a playoff--you want to win the thing!!! (Football and basketball are not "apple to apples" comparison...but PSU won the NIT last year in basketball and that meant something. It was a 32- team tournament with many teams ranked #35-70 in the country...and PSU won it. Is it like winning the NCAA tournament? Heck no. But it's something.)

The TV execs don't care about two G5 champs squaring off because it doesn't mean anything. I'm trying to propose something that has STAKES.

Do many fans in PA care about Temple? Not really. But if Temple were playing this weekend in round 1 at Appalachian State...thousands would tune in for the game to root for the "local" team. And it'd be a really fun game to watch. And if they win this week, NOW we have buy in. Now we WANT to tune in next weekend to see if they can do it again.

(Wonder how many PSU basketball games I watched from November to March last year? ZERO. How many NIT games did I watch? Most of them. Case in point. Playoffs are ratings bonanzas...even if it's simply "the world series of poker" or Olympic curling...)

You bring up an interesting point. Here is what I think MIGHT be worth considering. An NIT Football tournament owned by the CFP that tests the viability and possible commercial success of an 8 team CFP. This would not be a strictly G5 tournament. It would be an FBS tournament.

The NIT Football tournament would be seeded the exact same way the NIT is. Regular season conference champs not included in the NCAA tournament get auto bids to the NIT. So, in football—you’d start with all FBS champs NOT in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. That’s basically the four G5 champs not in the access bowl.

The rest of the 8 team field is made up of the top Committee teams not included in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. You can have the games on the home campus of the higher ranked team—or you could integrate the tourney into the bowl system (or perhaps a combination of each with home stadiums for the first round and bowls for the later rounds),

Now, THAT might have some appeal to TV and, because it includes both the G5 and the P5, is NOT a road to seperate lower “G5 division” that might be worth considering.

(12-09-2018 01:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 03:35 AM)micahandme Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 05:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Look, here's my take on this G5 playoff crap. Your essentially suggesting the G5 champs face off against one another. Those games are there to be had RIGHT NOW. There are 4 G5 champs with no real attractive post season bowl destination. If these games are so valuable--you have to wonder why no network has stepped forward and offered big money to create a couple of G5 champ v G5 champ bowls?

Because there isn't a TROPHY at the end of the day. Again, who cares who wins the "Boca Raton Bowl"? I'm a Penn State fan, and I have ZERO interest in wearing a "Fiesta Bowl Champs" t-shirt. Who cares? It was a fun bowl game last year...it gave us a top 10 finish and an 11-2 season...it kept PSU undefeated in the Fiesta all-time...but who cares? It was just a game.

When you have a tournament--a playoff--you want to win the thing!!! (Football and basketball are not "apple to apples" comparison...but PSU won the NIT last year in basketball and that meant something. It was a 32- team tournament with many teams ranked #35-70 in the country...and PSU won it. Is it like winning the NCAA tournament? Heck no. But it's something.)

The TV execs don't care about two G5 champs squaring off because it doesn't mean anything. I'm trying to propose something that has STAKES.

Do many fans in PA care about Temple? Not really. But if Temple were playing this weekend in round 1 at Appalachian State...thousands would tune in for the game to root for the "local" team. And it'd be a really fun game to watch. And if they win this week, NOW we have buy in. Now we WANT to tune in next weekend to see if they can do it again.

(Wonder how many PSU basketball games I watched from November to March last year? ZERO. How many NIT games did I watch? Most of them. Case in point. Playoffs are ratings bonanzas...even if it's simply "the world series of poker" or Olympic curling...)

You bring up an interesting point. Here is what I think MIGHT be worth considering. An NIT Football tournament owned by the CFP that tests the viability and possible commercial success of an 8 team CFP. This would not be a strictly G5 tournament. It would be an FBS tournament.

The NIT Football tournament would be seeded the exact same way the NIT is. Regular season conference champs not included in the NCAA tournament get auto bids to the NIT. So, in football—you’d start with all FBS champs NOT in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. That’s basically the four G5 champs not in the access bowl.

The rest of the 8 team field is made up of the top Committee teams not included in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. You can have the games on the home campus of the higher ranked team—or you could integrate the tourney into the bowl system (or perhaps a combination of each with home stadiums for the first round and bowls for the later rounds),

Now, THAT might have some appeal to TV and, because it includes both the G5 and the P5, is NOT a road to seperate lower “G5 division” that might be worth considering.

If the G4 champions are guaranteed a spot in this playoff it might work.

(12-09-2018 01:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 03:35 AM)micahandme Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 05:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Look, here's my take on this G5 playoff crap. Your essentially suggesting the G5 champs face off against one another. Those games are there to be had RIGHT NOW. There are 4 G5 champs with no real attractive post season bowl destination. If these games are so valuable--you have to wonder why no network has stepped forward and offered big money to create a couple of G5 champ v G5 champ bowls?

Because there isn't a TROPHY at the end of the day. Again, who cares who wins the "Boca Raton Bowl"? I'm a Penn State fan, and I have ZERO interest in wearing a "Fiesta Bowl Champs" t-shirt. Who cares? It was a fun bowl game last year...it gave us a top 10 finish and an 11-2 season...it kept PSU undefeated in the Fiesta all-time...but who cares? It was just a game.

When you have a tournament--a playoff--you want to win the thing!!! (Football and basketball are not "apple to apples" comparison...but PSU won the NIT last year in basketball and that meant something. It was a 32- team tournament with many teams ranked #35-70 in the country...and PSU won it. Is it like winning the NCAA tournament? Heck no. But it's something.)

The TV execs don't care about two G5 champs squaring off because it doesn't mean anything. I'm trying to propose something that has STAKES.

Do many fans in PA care about Temple? Not really. But if Temple were playing this weekend in round 1 at Appalachian State...thousands would tune in for the game to root for the "local" team. And it'd be a really fun game to watch. And if they win this week, NOW we have buy in. Now we WANT to tune in next weekend to see if they can do it again.

(Wonder how many PSU basketball games I watched from November to March last year? ZERO. How many NIT games did I watch? Most of them. Case in point. Playoffs are ratings bonanzas...even if it's simply "the world series of poker" or Olympic curling...)

You bring up an interesting point. Here is what I think MIGHT be worth considering. An NIT Football tournament owned by the CFP that tests the viability and possible commercial success of an 8 team CFP. This would not be a strictly G5 tournament. It would be an FBS tournament.

The NIT Football tournament would be seeded the exact same way the NIT is. Regular season conference champs not included in the NCAA tournament get auto bids to the NIT. So, in football—you’d start with all FBS champs NOT in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. That’s basically the four G5 champs not in the access bowl.

The rest of the 8 team field is made up of the top Committee teams not included in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. You can have the games on the home campus of the higher ranked team—or you could integrate the tourney into the bowl system (or perhaps a combination of each with home stadiums for the first round and bowls for the later rounds),

Now, THAT might have some appeal to TV and, because it includes both the G5 and the P5, is NOT a road to seperate lower “G5 division” that might be worth considering.

Speaking of the NIT, know what the NIT championship gets for viewers? Right around a million. Championship on ESPN the last four years: 1.1 million, 781k, 1.0 million and 1.3 million.

Thats right on par with the Division II basketball championship: 1.15 million, 1.19 million and 1.17 million the last three years.

That seems to support the position that a football NIT or "G5 playoff" would get ratings closer to the FCS championship than the CFP invitational showcase games

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2017/03/...on-ii-cbs/

(12-09-2018 04:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 01:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 03:35 AM)micahandme Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 05:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Look, here's my take on this G5 playoff crap. Your essentially suggesting the G5 champs face off against one another. Those games are there to be had RIGHT NOW. There are 4 G5 champs with no real attractive post season bowl destination. If these games are so valuable--you have to wonder why no network has stepped forward and offered big money to create a couple of G5 champ v G5 champ bowls?

Because there isn't a TROPHY at the end of the day. Again, who cares who wins the "Boca Raton Bowl"? I'm a Penn State fan, and I have ZERO interest in wearing a "Fiesta Bowl Champs" t-shirt. Who cares? It was a fun bowl game last year...it gave us a top 10 finish and an 11-2 season...it kept PSU undefeated in the Fiesta all-time...but who cares? It was just a game.

When you have a tournament--a playoff--you want to win the thing!!! (Football and basketball are not "apple to apples" comparison...but PSU won the NIT last year in basketball and that meant something. It was a 32- team tournament with many teams ranked #35-70 in the country...and PSU won it. Is it like winning the NCAA tournament? Heck no. But it's something.)

The TV execs don't care about two G5 champs squaring off because it doesn't mean anything. I'm trying to propose something that has STAKES.

Do many fans in PA care about Temple? Not really. But if Temple were playing this weekend in round 1 at Appalachian State...thousands would tune in for the game to root for the "local" team. And it'd be a really fun game to watch. And if they win this week, NOW we have buy in. Now we WANT to tune in next weekend to see if they can do it again.

(Wonder how many PSU basketball games I watched from November to March last year? ZERO. How many NIT games did I watch? Most of them. Case in point. Playoffs are ratings bonanzas...even if it's simply "the world series of poker" or Olympic curling...)

You bring up an interesting point. Here is what I think MIGHT be worth considering. An NIT Football tournament owned by the CFP that tests the viability and possible commercial success of an 8 team CFP. This would not be a strictly G5 tournament. It would be an FBS tournament.

The NIT Football tournament would be seeded the exact same way the NIT is. Regular season conference champs not included in the NCAA tournament get auto bids to the NIT. So, in football—you’d start with all FBS champs NOT in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. That’s basically the four G5 champs not in the access bowl.

The rest of the 8 team field is made up of the top Committee teams not included in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. You can have the games on the home campus of the higher ranked team—or you could integrate the tourney into the bowl system (or perhaps a combination of each with home stadiums for the first round and bowls for the later rounds),

Now, THAT might have some appeal to TV and, because it includes both the G5 and the P5, is NOT a road to seperate lower “G5 division” that might be worth considering.

Speaking of the NIT, know what the NIT championship gets for viewers? Right around a million. Championship on ESPN the last four years: 1.1 million, 781k, 1.0 million and 1.3 million.

Thats right on par with the Division II basketball championship: 1.15 million, 1.19 million and 1.17 million the last three years.

That seems to support the position that a football NIT or "G5 playoff" would get ratings closer to the FCS championship than the CFP invitational showcase games

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2017/03/...on-ii-cbs/

Clearly the ratings to an NIT woudlnt match the CFP. However, the 8-team NIT Im envisioning would not be just G5. Likely half the field would be ranked P5 teams. Some of the G5 champs might be ranked as well. No reason to expect it to draw FCS playoff game viewership. I would think it would draw closer to mid-level non-CFP bowls or better.

(12-09-2018 05:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 04:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 01:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 03:35 AM)micahandme Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 05:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Look, here's my take on this G5 playoff crap. Your essentially suggesting the G5 champs face off against one another. Those games are there to be had RIGHT NOW. There are 4 G5 champs with no real attractive post season bowl destination. If these games are so valuable--you have to wonder why no network has stepped forward and offered big money to create a couple of G5 champ v G5 champ bowls?

Because there isn't a TROPHY at the end of the day. Again, who cares who wins the "Boca Raton Bowl"? I'm a Penn State fan, and I have ZERO interest in wearing a "Fiesta Bowl Champs" t-shirt. Who cares? It was a fun bowl game last year...it gave us a top 10 finish and an 11-2 season...it kept PSU undefeated in the Fiesta all-time...but who cares? It was just a game.

When you have a tournament--a playoff--you want to win the thing!!! (Football and basketball are not "apple to apples" comparison...but PSU won the NIT last year in basketball and that meant something. It was a 32- team tournament with many teams ranked #35-70 in the country...and PSU won it. Is it like winning the NCAA tournament? Heck no. But it's something.)

The TV execs don't care about two G5 champs squaring off because it doesn't mean anything. I'm trying to propose something that has STAKES.

Do many fans in PA care about Temple? Not really. But if Temple were playing this weekend in round 1 at Appalachian State...thousands would tune in for the game to root for the "local" team. And it'd be a really fun game to watch. And if they win this week, NOW we have buy in. Now we WANT to tune in next weekend to see if they can do it again.

(Wonder how many PSU basketball games I watched from November to March last year? ZERO. How many NIT games did I watch? Most of them. Case in point. Playoffs are ratings bonanzas...even if it's simply "the world series of poker" or Olympic curling...)

You bring up an interesting point. Here is what I think MIGHT be worth considering. An NIT Football tournament owned by the CFP that tests the viability and possible commercial success of an 8 team CFP. This would not be a strictly G5 tournament. It would be an FBS tournament.

The NIT Football tournament would be seeded the exact same way the NIT is. Regular season conference champs not included in the NCAA tournament get auto bids to the NIT. So, in football—you’d start with all FBS champs NOT in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. That’s basically the four G5 champs not in the access bowl.

The rest of the 8 team field is made up of the top Committee teams not included in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. You can have the games on the home campus of the higher ranked team—or you could integrate the tourney into the bowl system (or perhaps a combination of each with home stadiums for the first round and bowls for the later rounds),

Now, THAT might have some appeal to TV and, because it includes both the G5 and the P5, is NOT a road to seperate lower “G5 division” that might be worth considering.

Speaking of the NIT, know what the NIT championship gets for viewers? Right around a million. Championship on ESPN the last four years: 1.1 million, 781k, 1.0 million and 1.3 million.

Thats right on par with the Division II basketball championship: 1.15 million, 1.19 million and 1.17 million the last three years.

That seems to support the position that a football NIT or "G5 playoff" would get ratings closer to the FCS championship than the CFP invitational showcase games

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2017/03/...on-ii-cbs/

Clearly the ratings to an NIT woudlnt match the CFP. However, the 8-team NIT Im envisioning would not be just G5. Likely half the field would be ranked P5 teams. Some of the G5 champs might be ranked as well. No reason to expect it to draw FCS playoff game viewership. I would think it would draw closer to mid-level non-CFP bowls or better.

My point was the relative numbers between March Madness and NIT and D-II, and the relative numbers between CFP and FCS championship and a hypothetical football NIT or "G5 playoff."
In another post, I offered up DOUBLE the FCS' proven viewers for championship and semis plus MAC/CUSA CCG numbers for quarterfinals for the OP's proposal...those eleven games still wouldn't surpass AAC's NON-Peach Bowl bowl viewers from last year.

I do see that the level of teams in this proposal would be above hoops NIT from the start...but also from the start it's positioned as a lower level tournament than the CFP and the viewer numbers say that a lower level tournament is a turnoff for casual fans.

(12-08-2018 09:48 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  However for those who don’t want to expand the playoff... I present to you: STFU Saturday.

You know, I kinda like this idea! Even the title has a certain ring to it! It would actually go a long way to making a ton of schools & fans STFU!

(12-09-2018 01:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You bring up an interesting point. Here is what I think MIGHT be worth considering. An NIT Football tournament owned by the CFP that tests the viability and possible commercial success of an 8 team CFP. This would not be a strictly G5 tournament. It would be an FBS tournament.

The NIT Football tournament would be seeded the exact same way the NIT is. Regular season conference champs not included in the NCAA tournament get auto bids to the NIT. So, in football—you’d start with all FBS champs NOT in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. That’s basically the four G5 champs not in the access bowl.

The rest of the 8 team field is made up of the top Committee teams not included in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. You can have the games on the home campus of the higher ranked team—or you could integrate the tourney into the bowl system (or perhaps a combination of each with home stadiums for the first round and bowls for the later rounds),

Now, THAT might have some appeal to TV and, because it includes both the G5 and the P5, is NOT a road to seperate lower “G5 division” that might be worth considering.

This is a proposal that the AAC might buy into. I think higher ranked host in the first round, two post-XMas, pre-NYD bowls semi-finals, and a CFIT Championship Game in the week in between the NY6 and the NCG.

If the quarterfinals are hosted by the four higher CFP ranked schools among the eight, then to add extra spice, the visitors might choose their destination by CFP ranking as well.

To get A5 buy-in, it would have to be optional for the at-large teams ... so it would be more in demand by younger teams who want the extra game time and a more senior heavy team might just want a traditional bowl game. Those quarterfinals make more compelling viewing than the typical pre-XMas bowls, so they crowd some of those out if they are played two weeks after CCG week, but as they remove four bowls worth of teams from the traditional bowl system, and only use two conventional bowls, there's leeway for shuttering a couple of ESPN owned bowls to make room.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(12-09-2018 12:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, I didn't say that no SB/CUSA/MAC team would ever get in. I said each would have about a 1% chance of getting in per year. That's a 3% chance of one of them getting in each year, a 1/33 chance. That's hardly "practically impossible". Those kinds of things happen every day just around your house.

Really, once in a century events regarding one of the main things you are trying to do in the year do not happen every day around your house. To happen every day, they have to have an odds higher than once per century.

Quote: So yes, I'm assuming that it is somewhat fluky that a MAC team has gotten in during the 5 years of the CFP. On the other hand, the SB and CUSA have not put any in.

It's only fluky that it was the MAC that got in rather than CUSA or SBC ... the AAC will have years that the top teams beat each other up and take their champion out of the running, and both the AAC and MWC will have relatively down years and years that the CCG is an upset win by a team that is not in line for the Access Bowl. That spot is going to be open a lot more than once in 33 years. And those will not be correlated between the two conferences, so its going to be a lot more often than one in 33 years that there is an opening.

What was fluky about that year was that the MAC was in no matter who won the CCG ... I reckon it would be more typical that the fact that it is an "open" year for the best of the MAC, CUSA or SBC champions or which conference will fill the slot or both will happen during Championship week, which increases the appeal of the Go5 Champions Week games.

Quote: Bottom line is, even if we assume I am wrong and that the distribution is more along the lines of what has actually happened - 60% AAC, 20% MWC, 20% CUSA/SB/MAC, as that works out to about a 6.7% chance of the CUSA, MAC, or SB putting a team in the playoffs, I don't see how they have much incentive to support it, when the overwhelming benefits will go to the AAC and to a lesser extent the MWC.

If a better offer for the MAC/CUSA/SBC/MWC is on the table, sure, the idea that half the time it will be the AAC champion in the Access Bowl will weaken support. It's just that a Go5 playoff, minus the Access Bowl participant, minus the AAC bowl eligible teams not in the Access Bowl, and minus any other ranked bowl eligible Go5 teams able to snare a secondary bowl spot against an A5 team is not enough media value to generate the money to justify handing away that one in fifteen year place in the Access Bowl.

Quote: You might reply with "well, 7% is better than 0% as it is now", but there is one benefit to the status quo, which is that it does keep the AAC and MWC in the fold with the other G5.

I don't understand this. 7% is better than 0%, and the current system keeps the AAC in the fold. The alternative in the OP would force the AAC to choose between sending it's best teams into a second tier playoff and keeping it's P5 bowls, and it will keep it's P5 bowls every time, so it would actually create the "Go4" that at present only exists in the fevered imaginations of certain slightly disconnected from reality AAC supporters.

Quote: So IMO, a 7% chance isn't enough for the SB to endorse a system that is much more likely to end up with them losing more status (as the AAC and MWC separate) within the current system.

I don't see acknowledging the AAC as separate as being an alternative that will tend to keep the AAC from separating. IMV, it is the reverse: I think the OP proposal which would never be accepted by the AAC is the alternative that would tend to separate the AAC from the rest of the Go5.

Quote:My "meaningless exhibition tournament" would be infinitely more fun than your "meaningless" Boca Raton Bowl between UAB and Northern Illinois.

I dunno. Your tournament wouldn't be meaningless of course, but I think Conf-Winner Bowls are pretty good -- and a better tourney would be better than a G5 Conf winner bowl or two. Plus, realistically, the Top G5 wouldn't be in it, but instead, in a NY6 bowl (more $$, sorry). You could tweak it that the Top G5 would not be allowed in the NY6 bowl if below the Top 16, but even that's a hard sell, seeing as though the last time a below-#16 team went, they won their NY6 bowl (Boise).

So here's my fantasy proposal... 8-team G5 playoff, with new rule Not to be in NY6 bowl if below Top 20 (usually won't happen).

All G5 Champs (5) Auto-Bid
1 G5 Champ nixed much of the time; like in 2018; 2nd best team from conference representing instead (not necessarily div winner)
3-4 Best Other Non-P5s invited; cannot play same-conference team 1st round; nor play a team played during regular season 1st round
2 Team Limit Per Conference, unless 3rd team is within Top 4 of Overall 8 (which includes top G5 skipping for NY Bowl)
- Conference Champs get edge in seeding over non-conf champs if roughly close to the same 'rank'
- 1st Round is Home/Away; Home team must Not limit tickets sold to other team outside 1-8/2-7 match ups.
* = Auto-Bid winning Conference
** = Auto-Bid representing Conference when conference winner goes to NY6 bowl

1. Fresno State*
8. UAB*

4. App State*
5. Cincinnati**

2. Boise State
7. Memphis

3. Army
6. N Illinois*

#UCF Out; Goes to NY6 Bowl
#Utah State Out; Not being in Top 4 among ALL G5+Indep, with Fresno+Boise getting the nod ahead of them

That'd be fun to watch. Not having 12 or 16 teams, but just 8.

Dec 14-15th: 1st Round (Home/Away Games)

Dec 22nd: 2nd Round (Final Four) - Two Bowls; Possibly same field @ 12PM & 8PM

New Years/NYE: Championship Bowl

*THIS*, not too expanded, would be better than having an occasional CUSA vs MAC Bowl Championship bowl (which is fun to watch) -- and way better than a 16 team playoff, as most the public are not G5 followers.

With just 5 G5 Champs + Possible independent (BYU or Army), 8 team playoff is the best to put the focus on Conf Champ and not to lesson that concept (which is why NCAA Football winces at true playoffs).

2017 Example:

1. Boise State* (10-3)
8. Army (9-3)

4. Toledo* (11-2)
5. FAU* (10-3)

2. Memphis** (10-2)
7. Fresno St (9-4)

3. S Florida (9-2)
6. Troy* (10-2)

It somehow seems appropriate to quote Regina George here...



There are 65 non-A5 programs out there. If we want to seek an alternative, we'll come up with it on our own. We don't need P5 fans telling us what we should or shouldn't do.

USFFan

I think you should look at it this way. All the 5 loss teams stay home.

1.UCF 12-0
2.Fresno State 11-2
3.Army 10-2
4.Appalachian State 10-2
5.Cincinnati 10-2
6.Utah State 10-2
7.Boise State 10-3
8.Georgia Southern 9-3
9.UAB 10-3
10.Buffalo 10-3
11.Troy 9-3
12.North Texas 9-3
13.Temple 8-4
14.Houston 8-4
15.Marshall 8-4
16.Arkansas State

Matchups:
16.A4kansas State @ 1.UCF
15.Marshall @ 2.Fresno State
14.Houston @ 3.Army
13.Temple @ 4.Appalachian State
12.North Texas @ 5.Cincinnati
11.Troy @ 6.Utah State
10.Buffalo @ 7.Boise State
9.UAB @ 8.Georgia Southern

Breakdown.
AAC=4
SBC=4
MWC=3
C-USA=3
MAC=1
Indee pendent=1

Total conferences combined by east west.
West=4
East=12

The breakdown is the conferences of all G5s have the west being the weakest.
Ohio U, at 8-4 is also on the east. This is how it looks like.

(12-09-2018 08:10 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

Quote: You might reply with "well, 7% is better than 0% as it is now", but there is one benefit to the status quo, which is that it does keep the AAC and MWC in the fold with the other G5.

I don't understand this. 7% is better than 0%, and the current system keeps the AAC in the fold. The alternative in the OP would force the AAC to choose between sending it's best teams into a second tier playoff and keeping it's P5 bowls, and it will keep it's P5 bowls every time, so it would actually create the "Go4" that at present only exists in the fevered imaginations of certain slightly disconnected from reality AAC supporters.

Quote: So IMO, a 7% chance isn't enough for the SB to endorse a system that is much more likely to end up with them losing more status (as the AAC and MWC separate) within the current system.

I don't see acknowledging the AAC as separate as being an alternative that will tend to keep the AAC from separating. IMV, it is the reverse: I think the OP proposal which would never be accepted by the AAC is the alternative that would tend to separate the AAC from the rest of the Go5.

We seem to be talking about different things. I was commenting on Attackcoog's oft-stated plan of an 8-team playoff, with guaranteed bids for the P5 conference champs, two at large spots, and a guaranteed spot for the highest-ranking G5 team as well*.

* Not clear if he means 'highest ranked team' or 'highest ranking champ' as it is with the current Access bowl spot. That could matter some years, e.g., i think if UCF had lost a close game to Memphis last week, they would have remained the highest-ranking G5 team in the CFP, but would not have gotten the Access spot as that is reserved for the highest ranking G5 champion.

Quote:We seem to be talking about different things. I was commenting on Attackcoog's oft-stated plan of an 8-team playoff, with guaranteed bids for the P5 conference champs, two at large spots, and a guaranteed spot for the highest-ranking G5 team as well*.

An 8-team playoff will never have a Guaranteed G5 team. That's as certain as me not having a juicy stab at a super model. They had to expand the BCS-level bowls from 5 to 6 to give top-G5-conf winner a guaranteed spot. With only 4 matchups for an 8-team playoff -- No Way. At BEST, they'd have something a Little better than the 5 BCS bowl matchup: The Top G5 Conf Winner has to be in the Top 16. That would get it in, without too many complaints (although every so often it Would).

Most Most MOST likely tho, it'd be Top 12+ requirement unless said G5 Conf Winner >= one of the P5 Conf Winners who get an auto-bid who's below the Top 12.

Quote:* Not clear if he means 'highest ranked team' or 'highest ranking champ' as it is with the current Access bowl spot. That could matter some years, e.g., i think if UCF had lost a close game to Memphis last week, they would have remained the highest-ranking G5 team in the CFP, but would not have gotten the Access spot as that is reserved for the highest ranking G5 champion.

Yeah, if UCF would have lost, the Boise/Fresno winner would have gone. I think it's going to stay that way -- UNLESS of course, you're ranked Really High for an at-large anyway (super rarity). That said, if you lose in your conference championship to an 8-4 team like Memphis or Ohio, and not earlier in the season against Oklahoma/Ohio State by just a few pts -- you're not going to be ranked high enough for an at-large anyway.

IMO, going to an 8-team playoff is basically going to exclude the Top G5 Conf Winner at least half the time. I think they'd at Least require them to be Top 12. Which means most years, you're not going to have a Top G5 in. Now, if you had the requirement to be in the Top 16 -- then yes, that'd be enough to not rock the G5 fan boat. But I think that's wishful thinking (unless said #13-#20 Top G5 has >= ranking of a P5 Conf winner).

2018: UCF (12-0) #8 [Wouldn't be ranked this high if not for prev year; tougher for G5s to be undefeated-consistent; don't expect it]
2017: UCF (12-0) #12
X 2016: WMU (13-0) #15
X 2015: Houston (12-1) #18
X 2014: Boise St (11-2) #20
X 2013: UCF (11-1) #15
X 2012: NIU (12-1) #15

As far as 16-team playoffs go -- it's not at all going to happen in a decade and a half without some big revolutionary cry for it.

(12-10-2018 05:06 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:We seem to be talking about different things. I was commenting on Attackcoog's oft-stated plan of an 8-team playoff, with guaranteed bids for the P5 conference champs, two at large spots, and a guaranteed spot for the highest-ranking G5 team as well*.

An 8-team playoff will never have a Guaranteed G5 team.

Agreed.

(12-10-2018 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We seem to be talking about different things. I was commenting on Attackcoog's oft-stated plan of an 8-team playoff, with guaranteed bids for the P5 conference champs, two at large spots, and a guaranteed spot for the highest-ranking G5 team as well*.

I took playoff to be the playoff that is the topic of this thread. There is no big difference between going to a high profile bowl against the lowest ranked at large school and an automatic bid into an 8 team playoff except the seeding most years into an ass whipping. I don't expect more regular ass whipping of AACC champions by the one seeded CFP school helps the AAC "separate".

Quote:* Not clear if he means 'highest ranked team' or 'highest ranking champ' as it is with the current Access bowl spot. That could matter some years, e.g., i think if UCF had lost a close game to Memphis last week, they would have remained the highest-ranking G5 team in the CFP, but would not have gotten the Access spot as that is reserved for the highest ranking G5 champion.

It can be specified in the abstract all you want, but the same forces that led the access bowl to be among Go5 champions will still be there.

I doubt it could be won in negotiations. The best I could hope for would be highest ranked among independents and Go5 champs, with Go5 champs guaranteed a NY6 bowl when not in the CFP.

Quote:The best I could hope for would be highest ranked among independents and Go5 champs, with Go5 champs guaranteed a NY6 bowl when not in the CFP.

I couldn't see it that way at all. In a 12-16 team playoff, yes, Top G5 Champs to get in, like now. But not (non-ND) Independents. I see that rule still applying. Maybe at best, if an Independent is ranked in the Top 16, while no G5 Champ is ranked -- yes. That'd be a super blue moon, but in the super-rarity that'd occur, I don't think anyone would complain. Not something to look forward to.

That aside, if there's a CFP -- a REAL ONE (8/12/16 teams) -- there isn't going to be any NY6 bowls. They'd lose so much weight that way, they most likely would be embedded in said playoff, or they would just be like the other non-"BCS" bowls on NY that exist now.

A G5 or Independent (non-Notre Dame) is not going to get into an 8-team playoff unless they're ranked in the Top 8-12. There's no way they'll get an auto-bid with only 8. When there were only 10 teams in the NY/BCS bowls, a G4 team had to be better than a P6 Champ to get in + Top 16. G5 Champs only got auto-bids because they Expanded it to 12 teams. Reducing it down even Lower to 8 -- no way.

You'd only get a G5 Champ in an 8-team playoff once in a great while. At best, you'd have something like the Outback Bowl on NY for the sake of it being on NY (not a 'special' bowl, but good) for a G5 Champ that didn't make it.

(12-11-2018 03:28 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:The best I could hope for would be highest ranked among independents and Go5 champs, with Go5 champs guaranteed a NY6 bowl when not in the CFP.

I couldn't see it that way at all. In a 12-16 team playoff, yes, Top G5 Champs to get in, like now. But not (non-ND) Independents. I see that rule still applying.

Wait a minute ... saying that the best that I could hope for would be highest ranked among independents and Go5 champs (in the context of an all-A5 champs go 8) directly implies not just that choosing among best of Go5 champs is out of reach, it also implies that choosing among best of Go5 champs and non-ND Independents is out of reach.