(10-26-2019 02:41 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 02:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 09:02 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(10-25-2019 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2019 03:58 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  I bet AAC gets closer to MWC money than PAC12.

Yes, from a money POV the AAC is in one sense a "tweener" league, in that its money is clearly above that of the other G5 conferences. There's no doubt that $7m a year is a lot more than $1m or $2m a year.

But, since the lowest P5 is getting about $25m now, that means if the other G4 are San Francisco and the P5 are New York City, the AAC is about at Salt Lake City, far closer to the G side than the P side.

The AAC teams will be getting close to 8mil once they split UCONN's share that ESPN seems to be okay with.

I guess that is still Salt Lake City, maybe its suburbs, lol. And what makes you think ESPN isn't deducting UConn's share?

Because they haven't deducted it yet. That means it'll never happen. ESPN is altruistic.

The contract doesn't go into effect for about 9 months.

(10-25-2019 03:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In fairness to the B1G, this kind of shameless change of position to suit one's needs is basically characteristic of every conference ever.

No, that's true. For the Big Ten, if they weren't going to indulge CCG autonomy measures, a competing major conference who uses it to their advantage for access to the playoff would certainly trigger resistance.

This is still extremely hypocritical, though. And typical for them. Nobody else with clout can do nice or fun things because the Big Ten (and PAC) doesn't want to.

(10-26-2019 10:23 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-25-2019 03:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In fairness to the B1G, this kind of shameless change of position to suit one's needs is basically characteristic of every conference ever.

No, that's true. For the Big Ten, if they weren't going to indulge CCG autonomy measures, a competing major conference who uses it to their advantage for access to the playoff would certainly trigger resistance.

This is still extremely hypocritical, though. And typical for them. Nobody else with clout can do nice or fun things because the Big Ten (and PAC) doesn't want to.

In fairness to the B1G again, though, looking at this on empirical grounds, it is rather ridiculous that conferences are trying to manipulate their championship determination processes to enhance their CFP or NY6 chances. E.g., having CCGs that aren't needed because everyone has played round-robin, or having rematches of games vs top two teams that also aren't needed because they already played so as to give the conference another matchup of high-ranked teams at the end of the season.

That's one reason it makes no sense to give conference champs auto-bids: The methods used to pick conference champs are not usually chosen to be the most valid methods, rather they are picked for reasons like money or to enhance post-season chances.

(10-27-2019 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 10:23 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-25-2019 03:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In fairness to the B1G, this kind of shameless change of position to suit one's needs is basically characteristic of every conference ever.

No, that's true. For the Big Ten, if they weren't going to indulge CCG autonomy measures, a competing major conference who uses it to their advantage for access to the playoff would certainly trigger resistance.

This is still extremely hypocritical, though. And typical for them. Nobody else with clout can do nice or fun things because the Big Ten (and PAC) doesn't want to.

In fairness to the B1G again, though, looking at this on empirical grounds, it is rather ridiculous that conferences are trying to manipulate their championship determination processes to enhance their CFP or NY6 chances. E.g., having CCGs that aren't needed because everyone has played round-robin, or having rematches of games vs top two teams that also aren't needed because they already played so as to give the conference another matchup of high-ranked teams at the end of the season.

That's one reason it makes no sense to give conference champs auto-bids: The methods used to pick conference champs are not usually chosen to be the most valid methods, rather they are picked for reasons like money or to enhance post-season chances.

Ehhh. Same thing can be said for the CFP itself. The CFP design is about money, time constraints, petty bowl issues, etc.

In the end, the conferences choose how they crown their champs. All are operating a CCG using a couple of standard methods defined in the FBS rules. The champs are the champs. I doubt switching the conference CCG rules would have done much to alter the identity of the eventual conference champion in most years. That said, if you went to autobids in the CFP----using the divisionless method for CCG's would greatly reduce the chances of something like a completely oddball 7-5 team making it to the CFP because of a massive upset in the CCG.

The whole idea I though about permitting a conference to stage CCG with less than 12 teams was to put a stop on all the conference raiding required to go to 12.

If the XII had to go back to 12 that means they take 2 teams from the G5.

The SBC then is forced to call up 2-4 teams from FCS ect.

The same may happen with 10 because a CUSA split and rebuilding of each division to 10 members will force the SBC to add 4 teams just to get back to 8. Unless the 14 teams of CUSA, 12 teams of MAC and 10 teams of SBC (36 teams) formed 4 perfect conferences of 9 FB teams. As we know it doesn't work like that.

Of course with NMSU, UMass and Liberty sitting around yet as indys they are options to consider over the move up pool. Liberty I think would have the SBC over a barrel during the next major shakup.

(10-26-2019 09:03 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-25-2019 03:58 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-25-2019 06:49 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 04:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 02:19 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  The best AAC+G4 champ

Strange way to write "G5". Do AAC fans really buy into the Aresco propaganda?

Why not? ESPN does. Pays the AAC a lot more than the G4 leagues.

I bet AAC gets closer to MWC money than PAC12.

On a log scale, AAC will get 3-4x as much as MWC. Pac 12 gets 3-4x as much as AAC.

Pac 12 gets exactly 3x as much in TV money. Pac 12's current deal is for 21M annually in TV revenue.

(10-24-2019 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 02:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think Delany's comments here indicate that the Big10 has CLEARLY had a change of heart. Now, that doesnt mean that the Big10 is going to get rid of divisions---but it certainly indicates the Big10 would be open to a rule that gives them that option. The devil would be in the details.

If I am an AAC fan who wants a rule change, then I am hoping that the B1G once again misses the playoffs this year. Because that seems to have been the impetus for Delany's statement.

If the B1G does make the playoffs, then I imagine he and others in the B1G thinking about this will rest easier, and be less motivated to change any rules. At root, they would prefer not to change the rule, but one thing has been made clear the past few years is that P5 conferences are very concerned about any aspects of their structure that seem to be an impediment to making the playoffs.

Another ally in this is likely to be the ACC, especially as they're staring at the potential Coastalpocalypse of having every team in that division finish with an ACC record of 4-4...

USFFan

(10-27-2019 12:54 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The whole idea I though about permitting a conference to stage CCG with less than 12 teams was to put a stop on all the conference raiding required to go to 12.

If the XII had to go back to 12 that means they take 2 teams from the G5.

The SBC then is forced to call up 2-4 teams from FCS ect.

The same may happen with 10 because a CUSA split and rebuilding of each division to 10 members will force the SBC to add 4 teams just to get back to 8. Unless the 14 teams of CUSA, 12 teams of MAC and 10 teams of SBC (36 teams) formed 4 perfect conferences of 9 FB teams. As we know it doesn't work like that.

Of course with NMSU, UMass and Liberty sitting around yet as indys they are options to consider over the move up pool. Liberty I think would have the SBC over a barrel during the next major shakeup.

I don't think anyone outside of Texas State would be willing to leave the SBC to join CUSA. SBC has a better TV deal than CUSA.

(10-27-2019 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2019 10:23 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-25-2019 03:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In fairness to the B1G, this kind of shameless change of position to suit one's needs is basically characteristic of every conference ever.

No, that's true. For the Big Ten, if they weren't going to indulge CCG autonomy measures, a competing major conference who uses it to their advantage for access to the playoff would certainly trigger resistance.

This is still extremely hypocritical, though. And typical for them. Nobody else with clout can do nice or fun things because the Big Ten (and PAC) doesn't want to.

In fairness to the B1G again, though, looking at this on empirical grounds, it is rather ridiculous that conferences are trying to manipulate their championship determination processes to enhance their CFP or NY6 chances. E.g., having CCGs that aren't needed because everyone has played round-robin, or having rematches of games vs top two teams that also aren't needed because they already played so as to give the conference another matchup of high-ranked teams at the end of the season.

That's one reason it makes no sense to give conference champs auto-bids: The methods used to pick conference champs are not usually chosen to be the most valid methods, rather they are picked for reasons like money or to enhance post-season chances.

Ehhh. Same thing can be said for the CFP itself. The CFP design is about money, time constraints, petty bowl issues, etc.

No question. But that doesn't mean the CFP participants should be chosen using screwy methods. Conference champs are just not a good basis for playoff entry. If the playoffs were huge, so they could accomodate basically everyone like in hoops, then sure, there's little cost in doing that. But in a 4 or 8 team playoff, the price is too high to bear.

I don't know. Conference champs are pretty easy to identify. Whether they're 13-0 or 7-6 afterward, they won something. They played more games, too.

The playoff is already established as something that looks orderly but essentially comes down to a group of people looking over a heap of metrics and trying to make sense of it. If you're cool with that, and play for it, then this bit about having so much structure and order to determine CCG participants looks hypocritical and petty. At this point, CCG's are pretty much debased anyway, since you don't even need to participate in one, not winning a dang thing in a conference (not even your own division), and still get into the playoff. At least giving conferences the ability to put their most likely playoff qualifiers into a game adds more meaning to those games.

It is what it is at this point. The empty stands don't lie...this game, at this level, is not what or where it used to be. It's up to these places to figure out how to get people to care again. I doubt they have it in them to, but, at this point, what flies and what doesn't just looks silly, or absurd, like Calvinball or baseketball.

CFP is about getting the best teams in the playoff. All conferences and divisions are not equally good. We pretty much know an undefeated P5 conference champion is in, no matter how bad the conference is(ACC). The 2nd best team in a division can be the 2nd best team in the conference(Penn State/Ohio State loser, Alabama/LSU loser). Having to win their division is not a requirement. The SEC Championship is still the premier Conference Championship game with full stands.

(10-30-2019 08:35 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  Having to win their division is not a requirement.

Well, win, and you get a thirteenth game. That thirteenth game, not having one, that is, was held against Baylor and TCU. Or, how Wisconsin a few years back was rated #4 by the committee ahead of championship weekend, plays that extra game, loses, and loses their spot in the playoff. Punished for losing a bonus game against another good team, to see their spot go to a non-conference/divisional champ with only twelve games.

Mind you, I don't disagree that good teams have been represented in the playoff so far. It's the lack of consistency and transparency; the lack of logic is what kills it for people. And it's to a point where the game seems so fixed for certain programs and in certain conferences that it's hard to indulge the water-cooler talk. It's like we're almost at professional wrestling-level athletic integrity.

(10-29-2019 10:03 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It is what it is at this point. The empty stands don't lie...this game, at this level, is not what or where it used to be. It's up to these places to figure out how to get people to care again. I doubt they have it in them to, but, at this point, what flies and what doesn't just looks silly, or absurd, like Calvinball or baseketball.

Where does this idea come from? E.g., I just randomly picked a year for Alabama from the Good Old Days of College Football, 1971. Smack in the middle of the Bear Bryant era, a year in which Alabama won the SEC and had an 11-0 regular season record before losing to #1 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. They were ranked in the top 10 all year, and finished at #4.

Attendance that year:

At #5 USC ..... 67,000
At #18 LSU .... 64,000

USM at home ..................... 52,000
Ole Miss at home ................ 72,000
#14 Tennesssee at home ..... 73,000
Houston at home ................ 56,000
Miami at home ................... 57,000

vs #5 Auburn neutral site ..................... 68,000

Two massive games away from home, at #5 USC and vs #5 Auburn, and the attendance was 67,000 and 68,000?

The USC game was in the LA colisseum, and was only 2/3 full!

A game in Tiger Stadium between #4 Alabama and #18 LSU drew 64,000! Today it would be 101,000.

Five home games, and attendance averaged in the low 60s?

That's far from today, where Alabama draws 100,000 a game. Now true, the USA population is 50% greater than it was in 1970. But even if we add 50% to those numbers, in most cases they don't get us past where we are today.

And today there are WAY more TV options. Not counting the Orange Bowl, only three of their 1971 regular season games were on TV at all so the only way to see most of them was in the stands.

So where has the interest died off compared to the Good Old Days?

(10-30-2019 08:35 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  CFP is about getting the best teams in the playoff. All conferences and divisions are not equally good. We pretty much know an undefeated P5 conference champion is in, no matter how bad the conference is(ACC). The 2nd best team in a division can be the 2nd best team in the conference(Penn State/Ohio State loser, Alabama/LSU loser). Having to win their division is not a requirement. The SEC Championship is still the premier Conference Championship game with full stands.

This is where I think the CFP makes its mistake. It shouldn't be just about getting the *best* into the playoff, but also getting the *most deserving*. When you focus on the 4 best, you start to see criteria like the 'eye test' and quality losses to determine the field.

In an 8-team CFP format that has autobids for certain conference champions, you are likely to get the 4 best AND the 4 most deserving (with some overlap). And, it would make for a better tournament to allow all teams with a genuine argument to be there actually play it out on the field. Even better if you're able to incorporate all of the key markets and fan segments, including geography, power conferences, and even the non-insignificant G5 followers.

(10-30-2019 04:15 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 08:35 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  CFP is about getting the best teams in the playoff. All conferences and divisions are not equally good. We pretty much know an undefeated P5 conference champion is in, no matter how bad the conference is(ACC). The 2nd best team in a division can be the 2nd best team in the conference(Penn State/Ohio State loser, Alabama/LSU loser). Having to win their division is not a requirement. The SEC Championship is still the premier Conference Championship game with full stands.

This is where I think the CFP makes its mistake. It shouldn't be just about getting the *best* into the playoff, but also getting the *most deserving*. When you focus on the 4 best, you start to see criteria like the 'eye test' and quality losses to determine the field.

Maybe in theory, but ... in the 5 years of CFP, the four playoff teams have been almost identical to the 4 teams the computers would have picked, and absolutely identical to what the AP would have picked.

So who 'deserving' has been left out? Probably the example that would pop up is 2017, when Alabama, who didn't win the SEC, got in over Ohio State, who won the Big 10. But why does winning the Big 10 make Ohio State more deserving than Alabama, who didn't compete in the Big 10? It simply doesn't.

Another time would be 2016, when Ohio State got in over Penn State. That was different, because OSU did compete for the B1G title vs Penn State, and lost out. But, Penn State lost two games, whereas OSU only lost one.

So I'm not sure that the CFP has failed to put the four most deserving teams in.

(10-30-2019 04:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 10:03 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It is what it is at this point. The empty stands don't lie...this game, at this level, is not what or where it used to be. It's up to these places to figure out how to get people to care again. I doubt they have it in them to, but, at this point, what flies and what doesn't just looks silly, or absurd, like Calvinball or baseketball.

Where does this idea come from? E.g., I just randomly picked a year for Alabama from the Good Old Days of College Football, 1971. Smack in the middle of the Bear Bryant era, a year in which Alabama won the SEC and had an 11-0 regular season record before losing to #1 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. They were ranked in the top 10 all year, and finished at #4.

Attendance that year:

At #5 USC ..... 67,000
At #18 LSU .... 64,000

USM at home ..................... 52,000
Ole Miss at home ................ 72,000
#14 Tennesssee at home ..... 73,000
Houston at home ................ 56,000
Miami at home ................... 57,000

vs #5 Auburn neutral site ..................... 68,000

Two massive games away from home, at #5 USC and vs #5 Auburn, and the attendance was 67,000 and 68,000?

The USC game was in the LA colisseum, and was only 2/3 full!

A game in Tiger Stadium between #4 Alabama and #18 LSU drew 64,000! Today it would be 101,000.

Five home games, and attendance averaged in the low 60s?

That's far from today, where Alabama draws 100,000 a game. Now true, the USA population is 50% greater than it was in 1970. But even if we add 50% to those numbers, in most cases they don't get us past where we are today.

And today there are WAY more TV options. Not counting the Orange Bowl, only three of their 1971 regular season games were on TV at all so the only way to see most of them was in the stands.

So where has the interest died off compared to the Good Old Days?

I think you missed out on the stadium expansions.

For Alabama
Bryant Denny Stadium at the time held 60,210 from 1966-1987.
Legion Field Capacity was 68,821 from 1965-1977.

Bryant Denny expansion got really big when they moved the Iron Bowl from Birmingham's Legion Field to Auburn and Tuscaloosa campuses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_Field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant-Denny_Stadium

For USC game, It's a lot easier to fly cross country now vs back then.

(10-30-2019 03:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 08:35 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  Having to win their division is not a requirement.

Well, win, and you get a thirteenth game. That thirteenth game, not having one, that is, was held against Baylor and TCU. Or, how Wisconsin a few years back was rated #4 by the committee ahead of championship weekend, plays that extra game, loses, and loses their spot in the playoff. Punished for losing a bonus game against another good team, to see their spot go to a non-conference/divisional champ with only twelve games.

Mind you, I don't disagree that good teams have been represented in the playoff so far. It's the lack of consistency and transparency; the lack of logic is what kills it for people. And it's to a point where the game seems so fixed for certain programs and in certain conferences that it's hard to indulge the water-cooler talk. It's like we're almost at professional wrestling-level athletic integrity.

I remember the Big 12 commish saying they had two champions, not one. Baylor won that game 61-58. Head to head should matter.

Wisconsin lost 59-0 to Ohio State. The game wasn't even close.

(10-31-2019 09:20 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 04:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 10:03 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It is what it is at this point. The empty stands don't lie...this game, at this level, is not what or where it used to be. It's up to these places to figure out how to get people to care again. I doubt they have it in them to, but, at this point, what flies and what doesn't just looks silly, or absurd, like Calvinball or baseketball.

Where does this idea come from? E.g., I just randomly picked a year for Alabama from the Good Old Days of College Football, 1971. Smack in the middle of the Bear Bryant era, a year in which Alabama won the SEC and had an 11-0 regular season record before losing to #1 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. They were ranked in the top 10 all year, and finished at #4.

Attendance that year:

At #5 USC ..... 67,000
At #18 LSU .... 64,000

USM at home ..................... 52,000
Ole Miss at home ................ 72,000
#14 Tennesssee at home ..... 73,000
Houston at home ................ 56,000
Miami at home ................... 57,000

vs #5 Auburn neutral site ..................... 68,000

Two massive games away from home, at #5 USC and vs #5 Auburn, and the attendance was 67,000 and 68,000?

The USC game was in the LA colisseum, and was only 2/3 full!

A game in Tiger Stadium between #4 Alabama and #18 LSU drew 64,000! Today it would be 101,000.

Five home games, and attendance averaged in the low 60s?

That's far from today, where Alabama draws 100,000 a game. Now true, the USA population is 50% greater than it was in 1970. But even if we add 50% to those numbers, in most cases they don't get us past where we are today.

And today there are WAY more TV options. Not counting the Orange Bowl, only three of their 1971 regular season games were on TV at all so the only way to see most of them was in the stands.

So where has the interest died off compared to the Good Old Days?

I think you missed out on the stadium expansions.

For Alabama
Bryant Denny Stadium at the time held 60,210 from 1966-1987.
Legion Field Capacity was 68,821 from 1965-1977.

Bryant Denny expansion got really big when they moved the Iron Bowl from Birmingham's Legion Field to Auburn and Tuscaloosa campuses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_Field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant-Denny_Stadium

For USC game, It's a lot easier to fly cross country now vs back then.

I think you help make my point: The three games in the 50s listed above were at Denny, so that means an unbeaten, top 10 ranked Alabama team didn't fill the stadium for any of them.

For USC? Flying is flying, but you're not going to get 40,000 Alabama fans to fly to LA for that game in any event. And USC fans should be able to fill a lot more of that on their own.

And for the game at LSU, their stadium capacity was 67,000 at the time, so it wasn't full either.

And I didn't forget about stadium expansion. Stadium expansion is part and parcel of what I'm talking about - if the game is dying, why have stadiums expanded? Stadiums expand as interest rises, not falls.

To me, it's pretty telling that of the 10 largest capacity stadiums in the *world*, fully eight of them are college football stadiums. Those are ranked #2 - #9 on the list, #10 is an Australian cricket stadium. #1 is a ringer, it's a stadium in North Korea that is really only filled for the communist party's immense military parades and the like, not actual sports.

Just my two cents but I believe mass media has had the effect of concentrating fandom among a few perennial winners that have massive media appeal while less successful programs that none the less had strong loyal local followings within their area have seen their fan bases dwindle.

The cost of attending live sporting events is also resulting in a lot of folks watching from their couch.

(10-31-2019 10:12 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Just my two cents but I believe mass media has had the effect of concentrating fandom among a few perennial winners that have massive media appeal while less successful programs that none the less had strong loyal local followings within their area have seen their fan bases dwindle.

I remember college football before the modern TV era. In the 1970s, today's national powers, like Notre Dame, Ohio State, USC, Texas, and Alabama were .... all national powers and got all kinds of media attention.

Schools that basically make up the G5 today, like Fresno State, Eastern Michigan, and Memphis were functionally *invisible* to the nation. Basically, unless you were attending that school or lived within a few miles of it, you were unlikely to know that they had a football team or existed in any shape or form. E.g., I was a rabid college football fan then, watched every week and followed in the papers and Sports Illustrated every day or week during the season, and I had zero idea that any of those schools existed then. And I wasn't living in Tuscaloosa or Baton Rouge where local powers dominated the media, I was in Washington DC, a place without a major local power.

There is little doubt that G5-type schools have far, far more media visibility now than they did then.