(12-21-2020 06:13 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-20-2020 08:27 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The American has made too many strides in football to be on board with such an idea.

The idea certainly does seem to be counterproductive for the other G5 conferences, as well.

However, Attack Coog has made an interesting suggestion (above) that the non-P5 schools might actually improve if there were a parallel non-P5 (G5 + Independents) playoff series - - if, and only if, such a parallel series were to be equivalent or nearly equivalent in nearly all respects (compensation per school, broadcast in similar prime-time slots with comparable viewership potential, similar levels of marketing and
promotional advertising, etc.).

Admittedly, this may seem like a very unlikely scenario. However, a highly sophisticated strategic approach, if implemented properly, might make it possible to work out an arrangement that would create both: (1) much better bowl game opportunities for the top-ranked non-P5 teams; and (2)opportunities for the non-P5 conferences and schools to reap the benefits of a formal or informal coalition (much like the benefits that have been reaped by the de facto coalition of P5 conferences), which might well grant them the opportunity to empower themselves more broadly, going forward.

If they were to start small, by building a simple empowerment coalition to work toward a more inclusive post-season playoff bowl structure, their efforts could lead to a much better overall outcome for the non-P5 schools and conferences.

.

A strategic plan to set up a fully-equivalent "Non-P5 Mirror CFP" series.


The idea that any broadcasting network would offer to pay a roughly proportionate - if not equivalent - amount (on a per-school basis) that is currently paid to broadcast the CFP playoffs for the rights to televise a 4 team "Non-P5 Championship Series" would certainly seem, at present, to have little or chance of success.

However, there might be a way to create a much more inclusive playoff system for the non-P5 schools by implementing a relatively sophisticated strategy based on "Game Theory."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/

The following is an explication of a "thought-experiment" conducted to examine the potential feasibility of setting up a non-P5 playoff series that would have the potential to be played under conditions very similar to those of the existing CFP series, with respect to broadcasting time (i.e., optimal prime-time slots), payments allocated on a per-school basis, marketing, halftime events, and other promotional efforts.

......................................................................................................

NOTE: The following "thought-experiment" might or might not be feasible under the terms of the current broadcasting agreements between the various non-P5 conferences. [i]However, the fact that special provisions have been made to permit the existence of the CFP, itself, which has been able to operate autonomously despite the varying terms of the agreements between the 10 conferences and their broadcasters suggest that this might not be a major stumbling block.

Moreover, were an attempt to obtain a special waiver or a simple extension of the terms governing the CFP to be thwarted, the non-P5 conferences would be in a strong position were they to pursue the right to negotiate a broadcasting agreement for an autonomous playoff series, were they to pursue the matter through civil litigation, given that: (a) They have never had a team in the CFP, and (b) Under the terms of U.S. laws prohibiting discriminatory and anti-monopolistic practices, their right to hold a championship series would be likely to be upheld.

......................................................................................................

The basic elements of a game theory-based strategic plan would include the following:

The initial assumption of such a strategic plan would include the fundamental recognition that, in order to generate sufficient interest in such a proposal, among the potential broadcasters, the non-P5s - as a group - would need to make it clear to the various broadcasting entities that they would be willing to consider participating in a non-P5 "mirror CFP" playoff series, which would be initiated with an agreement to play an inaugural non-P5 playoff series for 50% of the amount that is currently paid for the exclusively P5 (CFP) series, contingent on a multi-year broadcasting agreementthat would phase-in a series of annual increases in per-school payments until they begin to approach the per-school payments for the CFP playoffs.

If there were enough interest among the non-P5 schools to create at least a willingness to give the idea a try, they could start out, very simply, by organizing themselves into a very loose-knit (or theoretical semblance of a) coalition, at first, with a title or name hinting (or yielding the vague impression) that they might be (but aren't actually) informally entertaining the idea of evolving into an FBS rival quasi-"league," which could be represented by the non-P5 Commissioners on a rotating basis. Alternatively, the non-P5s could opt to elect a "organizing committee" to represent them, with a dedicated or rotating chair.

The next step would be to develop a very simple consensus proposal for a parallel CFP series, which could be as simple as an agreement to convey (to the broadcasting organizations) nothing more than a mere willingness to consider the idea of conducting a non-P5 playoff series that would mirror the CFP playoff series in every respect, but would include the top 4 non-P5 teams.

From a game theory perspective, even an informal agreement to convey a mere willingness "to consider" the idea, might have the potential to be many times more empowering than one might ordinarily imagine, particularly if the news of such a decision were to be transmitted in a very sophisticated, strategic manner.

If managed properly, the "playing field" among the broadcasters could be affected almost instantaneously, by presenting them with a sudden realization that they - or their competitors - would now have a completely unexpected and challenging opportunity to initiate potentially profitable discussions with a newly self-empowered group of FBS conferences.

One of the more sophisticated strategies would be for the non-P5 coalition or committee to leak a couple of sketchy, but tantalizing mid-to-week details to a few selected reporters or bloggers, with the weekend approaching, of what might be referred to as "rumored" discussions among the non-P5 schools. The advantage of preceding formal notifications with strategic leaks of sketchy details is that such leaks often have the potential to go viral, like "memes," and to create a sense of enthusiasm (i.e., "buzz") that can sweep across the nation like wildfire. Very often, an idea that might be rejected out of hand if it were to be made directly, through normal channels, may instead be perceived as a potential opportunity if it is accompanied by a wave of public enthusiasm.

One way to illustrate the game theory implications of preceding an announcement with the release of a few sketchy details is by noting that the potential consequences of mere, but partially substantiated rumors have often been known to cause significant swings in valuation in the financial markets (S&P, Dow Jones, NASDAQ).

Within a few days - - just long enough for the rumor mill to begin to go "viral" over an upcoming weekend, or for the first couple reports to mention the rumors - - the non-P5 group would then proceed to send letters to the major and potential (entrepreneurial) broadcasters stating that there is a consensus among the non-P5 schools they would be willing to consider holding a non-P5 playoff series along the lines of a "mirror CFP" if there are broadcasters who would be interested in meeting the terms (near or full parity with the P5's CFP outlays within a specified period of years). To emphasize the competitive nature of the situation, he letters would be clearly marked with a "cc" note, making it crystal clear that the offer has been extended to their broadcasting competitors.

[i]The game theory element[/i] in making it clear that the non-P5 coalition is expressing nothing more than a "willingness to consider" such a proposal is that it would make it clear that, rather than taking a hopelessly subservient position by requesting a non-P5 playoff series, the non-P5 coalition has instead elected to empower itself by taking no action other than informing the recipients of a potential business opportunity for which the non-P5 coalition would be willing to consider competitive bids.

Because perceived scarcity tends to generate demand, it would be crucial for the fledgling coalition of non-P5 schools to make it clear that their agreement to consider proposals (similar to a "RFP" or request for proposals) would have a relatively tight (3-month) deadline, making it a "limited time offer." If there are no offers within 3 months, the formal "quasi-RFP" would simply expire, with no hints of willingness to extend the deadline or issue another quasi-RFP.

The chances of being contacted with a serious inquiry after the expiration of a 3-month deadline might actually increase if the willingness to consider a non-P5 series were not reiterated, because their silence on the matter would tend confirm the impression that the non-P5 coalition was truly offering broadcasters an opportunity, rather than making a request, which would be beneficial from the standpoint of perceived supply and demand.

Emphasizing the stipulation that the non-P5 coalition would not consider any offer that falls short of a proposed pathway to what would become a nearly-equivalent “mirror CFP” - - to be broadcasted in equivalent prime-time hours, preceded by equivalent pre-game marketing efforts, and with per-school payments scheduled to match the amount paid for the CFP playoffs within a few (e.g. 5) years - - would make it clear that patronizing or trivializing responses would be rejected. Although some broadcasters might be inclined to respond with an offer to pay a tiny fraction of the per-school CFP payments (e.g., to broadcast a Saturday noon “G5” championship game on ESPN+), they would be unlikely to do so, since it would generate a negative response and might redound to the benefit of one of their competitors.

Some, if not most of the major broadcasters would be expected, at least, to respond within the specified time limit, and to at least signal indicate some willingness to discuss the possibility of broadcasting some kind of a non-P5 playoff series, without necessarily addressing the strict criteria set forth by the latter. This, itself could be somewhat empowering, since the ball would then be in the hands of the non-P5 coalition, which would have a variety of options, ranging from reiterating that they would only be willing to consider offers that meet the minimum terms specified in their initial letter, to expressing a willingness to enter into broader discussions on a more flexible bona fides basis (e.g., a more gradual increase in per-school payments over a longer time frame, or an agreement to make per-school payments contingent on viewership data).

One of the most hoped-for outcomes of cc’ing their letters to a sufficient number of broadcasters, is that there would be some possibility that a non-P5 coalition might thus be able to set the stage for what would become tantamount to an auction. The hoped-for outcome would be to engage the potential broadcasters in a competitive bidding process, since this would make it much more likely that something closely approximating an equivalent non-P5 playoff could be set into motion.

Another equally sanguine possibility is that, if the non-P5 coalition were to pursue their strategy doggedly enough, it is possible that the P5 conferences might become sufficiently concerned to reach out to the non-P5 coalition with an offer to expand the CFP series. If they were to do so, the non-P5 coalition could choose between negotiating the details of an expanded CFP series or continuing to entertain competitive bids from the P5 and any broadcasters that might be interested in sponsoring a non-P5 “mirror CFP.”

To be clear---I think accepting a separate G5 playoff would be a MASSIVE mistake for the G5. What I suggested was simply a series of 3 high end bowls for the G5 champs. Two of the bowls would pit the #2 and #3 top G5 champs against ranked P5 opponents not in CFP bowls. The third bowl would pit the #4 and #5 G5 champs against one another. What Im suggesting is a something that fits neatly within the existing CFP framework---its not in any way a competitor to the current CFP system or a split FROM the current CFP system. What Im suggesting has nothing to do with crowning a champion---its just a way to insure that every G5 champ has a high quality post season destination worthy of a conference champion. The top G5 still goes to the access bowl in my plan.