Creating a G5 won't make the regular season games mean any more. All it will do is create additional separation that the P5 powers want (but only when it's convenient for them, they still want to count games against G5 teams, even if they're all home games). The implication is that it's second tier, even though the top G5 teams are often capable of beating most of the P5 teams. Especially if they got to play them at home.

(11-05-2015 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:18 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  -10 conferences = 10 conference champions.
- rank conference champions 1-10.
- champs 7-10 play play-in game (7v10,8v9)
- 2 play-in winners join champs 1-6 for 8 team playoff.

problem solved.

And all new problems created.

Nope.

the lack of specifics in your rebuttal is very telling.

(11-05-2015 04:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 10:20 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm as much of a P5-focused person as anyone, but it makes no sense for the G5 to do this.

As an anecdote, Illinois State made it to the FCS championship game last year. ISU has one of the largest alumni bases of any school in the Chicago market. Yet, there was more Chicago media coverage of NIU's appearance in the Boca Raton Bowl (much less an Illinois or Northwestern bowl appearance) than ISU making it all the way to the FCS final. When you're perceived as second class, then the general public doesn't care. Why would the G5 willingly do that to itself? There are already enough perception problems for the G5, so willingly removing themselves from the championship process entirely would be suicide. The general public doesn't want to watch "FCS Plus".

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

The G5 would be much better off creating a series of 3 major bowls with payoffs high enough to attract relatively high selections from the P5. The games would be jointly owned by the G5 and would provide quality guaranteed post season destinations for the 4 G5 champs that do not win the access bowl slots. The G5 split about 85 million a year. If they simply split 80 million a year and placed 5 million in a pool, they would have a 25 million dollar fund to guarantee the payouts for these games the next time the bowl renegotiation cycle rolls around. That's much better than a NIT to determine the 66th best team in the country.

That's not going to happen though. As soon as a G5 team is going to be in the bowl, pretty much all incentive for a P5 team to play in that bowl is gone. It's win-win for the G5 team, because if they lose it's because they were "supposed to lose" and if they win then it's the Super Bowl.


Bowls are all going to be P5 vs P5 or G5 vs G5, in the future.

The incentive is cash. That's what its all about and that's what its always been about. Make the payoff high enough, and a P5 conference will send a team to it. I have yet to see a P5 turn down money. What I don't believe will happen is the creation of the bowls. The G5 have not shown a willingness to invest in the group. I think you might see the AAC try and do something like this on their own with the Miami Bowl. They have a realignment war chest that would allow them to try something like this.

That kind of cash won't be there if one of the bowl game participants is a G5. That's the point.

(11-05-2015 04:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm as much of a P5-focused person as anyone, but it makes no sense for the G5 to do this.

As an anecdote, Illinois State made it to the FCS championship game last year. ISU has one of the largest alumni bases of any school in the Chicago market. Yet, there was more Chicago media coverage of NIU's appearance in the Boca Raton Bowl (much less an Illinois or Northwestern bowl appearance) than ISU making it all the way to the FCS final. When you're perceived as second class, then the general public doesn't care. Why would the G5 willingly do that to itself? There are already enough perception problems for the G5, so willingly removing themselves from the championship process entirely would be suicide. The general public doesn't want to watch "FCS Plus".

No one is talking about that. At least, I hope no one is talking about that.

Because you're exactly right.


But I do think that if G5 teams are only going to play G5 vs G5 bowls anyway, why not stick the two best G5 teams (that didn't get the access slot) in one of the biggest/largest payout G5 bowls? Creates possibly a little more intrigue, in the game.

Because its still going to be perceived as a contest to decide the 66th best team in the nation.

So instead of the 66th and 67th best teams in a G5 vs G5 bowl ... you propose that the 66th vs the 89th best teams in a G5 vs G5 bowl is superior?

(11-05-2015 05:47 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:18 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  -10 conferences = 10 conference champions.
- rank conference champions 1-10.
- champs 7-10 play play-in game (7v10,8v9)
- 2 play-in winners join champs 1-6 for 8 team playoff.

problem solved.

And all new problems created.

Nope.

the lack of specifics in your rebuttal is very telling.

Didn't need to, it was obvious.

But, if you really want to be spoon-fed: [insert all of the reasons that the presidents will never allow the play-off to go past four teams]

(11-05-2015 06:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:47 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:18 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  -10 conferences = 10 conference champions.
- rank conference champions 1-10.
- champs 7-10 play play-in game (7v10,8v9)
- 2 play-in winners join champs 1-6 for 8 team playoff.

problem solved.

And all new problems created.

Nope.

the lack of specifics in your rebuttal is very telling.

Didn't need to, it was obvious.

But, if you really want to be spoon-fed: [insert all of the reasons that the presidents will never allow the play-off to go past four teams]

again, no specifics, only bluster.

(11-05-2015 06:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 10:20 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm as much of a P5-focused person as anyone, but it makes no sense for the G5 to do this.

As an anecdote, Illinois State made it to the FCS championship game last year. ISU has one of the largest alumni bases of any school in the Chicago market. Yet, there was more Chicago media coverage of NIU's appearance in the Boca Raton Bowl (much less an Illinois or Northwestern bowl appearance) than ISU making it all the way to the FCS final. When you're perceived as second class, then the general public doesn't care. Why would the G5 willingly do that to itself? There are already enough perception problems for the G5, so willingly removing themselves from the championship process entirely would be suicide. The general public doesn't want to watch "FCS Plus".

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

The G5 would be much better off creating a series of 3 major bowls with payoffs high enough to attract relatively high selections from the P5. The games would be jointly owned by the G5 and would provide quality guaranteed post season destinations for the 4 G5 champs that do not win the access bowl slots. The G5 split about 85 million a year. If they simply split 80 million a year and placed 5 million in a pool, they would have a 25 million dollar fund to guarantee the payouts for these games the next time the bowl renegotiation cycle rolls around. That's much better than a NIT to determine the 66th best team in the country.

That's not going to happen though. As soon as a G5 team is going to be in the bowl, pretty much all incentive for a P5 team to play in that bowl is gone. It's win-win for the G5 team, because if they lose it's because they were "supposed to lose" and if they win then it's the Super Bowl.


Bowls are all going to be P5 vs P5 or G5 vs G5, in the future.

The incentive is cash. That's what its all about and that's what its always been about. Make the payoff high enough, and a P5 conference will send a team to it. I have yet to see a P5 turn down money. What I don't believe will happen is the creation of the bowls. The G5 have not shown a willingness to invest in the group. I think you might see the AAC try and do something like this on their own with the Miami Bowl. They have a realignment war chest that would allow them to try something like this.

That kind of cash won't be there if one of the bowl game participants is a G5. That's the point.

Swing and a miss. The bowls would be owned by the G5 and the cash would come from the G5. It will come from the portion of the G5 CFP payout money that is split on the basis of performance. Instead of splitting 19 million on the basis of performance, they would split 14 million on the basis of performance. The other 5 million would go to fund the bowls. Five years from now, when the next bowl cycle begins, the G5 would have a 25 million dollar fund and a 5 million per year stream of income to support the bowls until they turn profitable.

(11-05-2015 06:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm as much of a P5-focused person as anyone, but it makes no sense for the G5 to do this.

As an anecdote, Illinois State made it to the FCS championship game last year. ISU has one of the largest alumni bases of any school in the Chicago market. Yet, there was more Chicago media coverage of NIU's appearance in the Boca Raton Bowl (much less an Illinois or Northwestern bowl appearance) than ISU making it all the way to the FCS final. When you're perceived as second class, then the general public doesn't care. Why would the G5 willingly do that to itself? There are already enough perception problems for the G5, so willingly removing themselves from the championship process entirely would be suicide. The general public doesn't want to watch "FCS Plus".

No one is talking about that. At least, I hope no one is talking about that.

Because you're exactly right.


But I do think that if G5 teams are only going to play G5 vs G5 bowls anyway, why not stick the two best G5 teams (that didn't get the access slot) in one of the biggest/largest payout G5 bowls? Creates possibly a little more intrigue, in the game.

Because its still going to be perceived as a contest to decide the 66th best team in the nation.

So instead of the 66th and 67th best teams in a G5 vs G5 bowl ... you propose that the 66th vs the 89th best teams in a G5 vs G5 bowl is superior?

Your not making sense. Either you hadn't read what I have proposed, or you don't understand it. My proposal places the top 3 G5's champs in major bowl games against solid P5 opponents and places the bottom two in a bowl against one another. It simply creates suitable Post season destination bowls for the champs of every G5 conference. Having a significant post season destination for each G5 champ gives thier conference races context. There is no context or drama defining a conference race when the conference champ and the 5th place team end up interchangeable non-descript bowls with no discernible difference.

(11-06-2015 03:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There is no context or drama defining a conference race when the conference champ and the 5th place team end up interchangeable nondescript bowls with no discernible difference.

This is, after all, part of how the Big Ten became the Big Ten ... the annual fight to go to the Rose Bowl, the Parade of Roses, and the whole ball of wax. November games played under dreary grey cotton flannel skies to earn the right to play in Pasadena on New Year's Day.

Having the four schools that were eligible to be selected for the Access Bowl but who did not go, have some second level of special bowl to aim for, would indeed improve the meaning of conference games for division leaders where it looks like the CFP is going to pass them over even if they win their conference.

It was hard enough getting the P5 all signing onto the guaranteed Access Bowl slot, so arranging it by getting a tie in for specific bowls with specific P5 conferences seems a more reasonable strategy to aim for (for instance, a Go5/Big12 bowl tie-in in Texas and a Go5/ACC bowl tie-in in South Carolina (now that South Carolina can have bowls)).

All in all, I like this kind of approach more than the G5 #2 vs G5 #3 bowl, and either are better than the Go5 stepping down and taking over the second official tier from the FCS, pushing the FCS down into third tier status.

(11-05-2015 11:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 11:41 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 12:33 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 11:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  ECU was the last team in the door from the CUSA.

Duh

Duh. No they were not. Tulsa was the last team in the door from CUSA.

Who cares?

You both just got to the AAC this year. Thus, you have no right to tell anyone anything.

So just shut your mouth and be happy that you made it out of the CUSA.

Obviously you are a clown trying to make some kind of ignorant point. Tulsa was the last school added to the AAC. ECU was invited a year earlier with Tulane. As for the rest of your moronic post; I don't really care what any of those schools in any of those leagues do.

What is the deal with former CUSA school fans trying to pretend that (supposed) invite dates matter???

When you officially joined the conf is all that matters. ECU, Tulane and Tulsa all joined in 2014-15.

So fans of all three really just need to shut their mouths about CUSA and SB not being good enough.

Hold up a minute, just because they were one of the last invited does not mean they are undeserving. They love football down in Greenville and it has always been a good football program . To be honest about it,honest they have shown more support and dedication to football than half the programs in the AAC. I am glad they are in our conference ,I don't see why you feel the need to try and talk down to them. Maybe you should really look at a program before you talk as if they just fell into the spot they are in. They also get pissed when you talk bad about their baseball ,I don't recommend going there .

(11-06-2015 07:28 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 11:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 11:41 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 12:33 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Duh. No they were not. Tulsa was the last team in the door from CUSA.

Who cares?

You both just got to the AAC this year. Thus, you have no right to tell anyone anything.

So just shut your mouth and be happy that you made it out of the CUSA.

Obviously you are a clown trying to make some kind of ignorant point. Tulsa was the last school added to the AAC. ECU was invited a year earlier with Tulane. As for the rest of your moronic post; I don't really care what any of those schools in any of those leagues do.

What is the deal with former CUSA school fans trying to pretend that (supposed) invite dates matter???

When you officially joined the conf is all that matters. ECU, Tulane and Tulsa all joined in 2014-15.

So fans of all three really just need to shut their mouths about CUSA and SB not being good enough.

Hold up a minute, just because they were one of the last invited does not mean they are undeserving. They love football down in Greenville and it has always been a good football program . To be honest about it,honest they have shown more support and dedication to football than half the programs in the AAC. I am glad they are in our conference ,I don't see why you feel the need to try and talk down to them. Maybe you should really look at a program before you talk as if they just fell into the spot they are in. They also get pissed when you talk bad about their baseball ,I don't recommend going there .

Sigh. I could say that you should actually read and try to understand the argument before comment, but what's the point?


I wasn't saying that ECU is undeserving of the AAC. I agree, they are deserving.


I'm saying that since they just came from the CUSA, they have no right to put down the CUSA. That's easy enough, right?

(11-05-2015 09:39 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:47 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:18 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  -10 conferences = 10 conference champions.
- rank conference champions 1-10.
- champs 7-10 play play-in game (7v10,8v9)
- 2 play-in winners join champs 1-6 for 8 team playoff.

problem solved.

And all new problems created.

Nope.

the lack of specifics in your rebuttal is very telling.

Didn't need to, it was obvious.

But, if you really want to be spoon-fed: [insert all of the reasons that the presidents will never allow the play-off to go past four teams]

again, no specifics, only bluster.

What specifics?

Here are my specifics: the presidents approved a four-team playoff for 12 years and the commissioners confirmed in a recent article that they will not approve further expansion during that 12 year period.

End of story. You lose.

(11-06-2015 03:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 10:20 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

The G5 would be much better off creating a series of 3 major bowls with payoffs high enough to attract relatively high selections from the P5. The games would be jointly owned by the G5 and would provide quality guaranteed post season destinations for the 4 G5 champs that do not win the access bowl slots. The G5 split about 85 million a year. If they simply split 80 million a year and placed 5 million in a pool, they would have a 25 million dollar fund to guarantee the payouts for these games the next time the bowl renegotiation cycle rolls around. That's much better than a NIT to determine the 66th best team in the country.

That's not going to happen though. As soon as a G5 team is going to be in the bowl, pretty much all incentive for a P5 team to play in that bowl is gone. It's win-win for the G5 team, because if they lose it's because they were "supposed to lose" and if they win then it's the Super Bowl.


Bowls are all going to be P5 vs P5 or G5 vs G5, in the future.

The incentive is cash. That's what its all about and that's what its always been about. Make the payoff high enough, and a P5 conference will send a team to it. I have yet to see a P5 turn down money. What I don't believe will happen is the creation of the bowls. The G5 have not shown a willingness to invest in the group. I think you might see the AAC try and do something like this on their own with the Miami Bowl. They have a realignment war chest that would allow them to try something like this.

That kind of cash won't be there if one of the bowl game participants is a G5. That's the point.

Swing and a miss. The bowls would be owned by the G5 and the cash would come from the G5. It will come from the portion of the G5 CFP payout money that is split on the basis of performance. Instead of splitting 19 million on the basis of performance, they would split 14 million on the basis of performance. The other 5 million would go to fund the bowls. Five years from now, when the next bowl cycle begins, the G5 would have a 25 million dollar fund and a 5 million per year stream of income to support the bowls until they turn profitable.

I can't say that's an impossible proposal.

Just seems very unlikely and impractical to me. Can't see the G5 agreeing to give up such a large amount of money in order to attract a P5 team that had a bad season, to play in a G5 vs P5 bowl game that it would like lose.


And can't see what the P5 has to gain from such a proposal.

(11-05-2015 12:41 PM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  No G5 is gonna willingly agree to this and put themselves in a "Lower Division".

The best bet for the G5 would be for something to happen that evens the playing field. All conferences get the same amount of money. No independents allowed and all of those schools are forced to join a conference.

Let's see how the current P5 would do with less resources, less money, worse recruiting and so on....

I can name maybe 20 that would be good.

The rest would drop extremely quick without that free pay check.

That's the way it used to be and what Oklahoma and Georgia sued to be free from. No one is signing up for that again.

(11-06-2015 03:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 04:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm as much of a P5-focused person as anyone, but it makes no sense for the G5 to do this.

As an anecdote, Illinois State made it to the FCS championship game last year. ISU has one of the largest alumni bases of any school in the Chicago market. Yet, there was more Chicago media coverage of NIU's appearance in the Boca Raton Bowl (much less an Illinois or Northwestern bowl appearance) than ISU making it all the way to the FCS final. When you're perceived as second class, then the general public doesn't care. Why would the G5 willingly do that to itself? There are already enough perception problems for the G5, so willingly removing themselves from the championship process entirely would be suicide. The general public doesn't want to watch "FCS Plus".

No one is talking about that. At least, I hope no one is talking about that.

Because you're exactly right.


But I do think that if G5 teams are only going to play G5 vs G5 bowls anyway, why not stick the two best G5 teams (that didn't get the access slot) in one of the biggest/largest payout G5 bowls? Creates possibly a little more intrigue, in the game.

Because its still going to be perceived as a contest to decide the 66th best team in the nation.

So instead of the 66th and 67th best teams in a G5 vs G5 bowl ... you propose that the 66th vs the 89th best teams in a G5 vs G5 bowl is superior?

Your not making sense. Either you hadn't read what I have proposed, or you don't understand it. My proposal places the top 3 G5's champs in major bowl games against solid P5 opponents and places the bottom two in a bowl against one another. It simply creates suitable Post season destination bowls for the champs of every G5 conference. Having a significant post season destination for each G5 champ gives thier conference races context. There is no context or drama defining a conference race when the conference champ and the 5th place team end up interchangeable non-descript bowls with no discernible difference.

The top G5 champ already goes to a major bowl game. That's the access slot.


That leaves the other four G5 champs. I'm proposing #2 vs #3 in a bowl game.

You're proposing #2 and #3 vs some P5 team, in what would not be major bowls (even if they had a payout boosted from G5 CFP money). And I don't think the P5 will bite, anyway.


But as I just said in the other post, your proposal is not impossible.

(11-06-2015 10:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:39 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:47 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And all new problems created.

Nope.

the lack of specifics in your rebuttal is very telling.

Didn't need to, it was obvious.

But, if you really want to be spoon-fed: [insert all of the reasons that the presidents will never allow the play-off to go past four teams]

again, no specifics, only bluster.

What specifics?

Here are my specifics: the presidents approved a four-team playoff for 12 years and the commissioners confirmed in a recent article that they will not approve further expansion during that 12 year period.

End of story. You lose.

I've heard more articulate arguments from 4 year olds.

(11-06-2015 10:45 AM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 10:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:39 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:47 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  the lack of specifics in your rebuttal is very telling.

Didn't need to, it was obvious.

But, if you really want to be spoon-fed: [insert all of the reasons that the presidents will never allow the play-off to go past four teams]

again, no specifics, only bluster.

What specifics?

Here are my specifics: the presidents approved a four-team playoff for 12 years and the commissioners confirmed in a recent article that they will not approve further expansion during that 12 year period.

End of story. You lose.

I've heard more articulate arguments from 4 year olds.

You must know genius 4 year olds. Good for you

AAC 9 could have a shot at a bowl. 3 or 4 may not get an invite.
C-USA could get 8 in a bowl, but 2 may not get the spots.
MAC could get 9 eligible, but only 5 spots to fill.
MWC could get 8, but only 6 spots.
Sun Belt could get 9 eligible, but only 4 spots.
Than the 2 Independents of BYU and Notre Dame.


ACC had 12 teams bowl eligible last year. This year, 6 are flirting staying home.
Big 10 have 4 teams that could stay home.
Big 12 could have 5 teams staying home. Not good if only 50% of your conference goes to a bowl game which in turns = less $.
PAC 12 have 3 maybe 4 staying home.
SEC could have 7 of their teams on the verge on staying home.

So, a lot of the G5 schools would become at large schools to get spots that the P5 conferences can't fill.