http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4...rigue-ndsu

NDSU's AD isn't intrigued. He wants to remain a big fish in a small pond.

(12-29-2016 03:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 02:03 PM)YNot Wrote:  The Group of 5 schools have it WAY better than it used to be.

The bowl alliance system was created to keep non-p5 schools out of not just the national championship picture, but the big bowl games. The bowl alliance morphed into the BCS.

Then, the BCS was modified to allow a non-BCS school *conditional* access (top-12 ranking or top-16 and ranked higher than a BCS champion).

But then, in the CFP/NY deal, Aresco negotiated the Group of 5 *automatic* bid to the NY6 bowls.

To have automatic access to the Cotton, Peach, or Fiesta bowl is much better than what the non-BCS schools could hope for just 12-15 years ago.

Seems extremely dumb to toss aside the automatic G5 access. The next step is to push to expand the CFP and to get at least conditional G5 access (ie, top-12 ranking or something like that).

To institute a G5 playoff is to go the opposite and wrong direction.

Exactly. The trend is in the right direction. The next move should be to try for expansion of the playoff with guaranteed or conditional required G5 qualification for the playoff. For the time being, the G5 should be looking to work within the current bowl system to create a series of bowls that could serve as appropriate post season destinations for the G5 champions who do not make the access bowl. A separate G5 playoff is a terrible idea.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

(12-29-2016 02:55 PM)LaTechBanjo Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 02:37 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  G5 teams have no leverage.

P5 schools pay 7 figures for G5 schools to show up and play.

The G5 is half of the FBS for NCAA voting matters not covered under autonomy.

"Areas that will not fall under the autonomy umbrella include postseason tournaments, transfer policies, scholarship limits, signing day and rules governing on-field play."


There is leverage.

The G5 schools are half of the FBS for voting matters until that becomes inconvenient for the P5.

If the G5 thinks it has leverage, they should definitely use it. Either way, the outcome would be very interesting.

(12-29-2016 10:38 AM)NDSUguy Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 10:36 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  I know our AD at Arkansas State would not go for this at all. I guess it is a MAC thing.

Why? what else besides money from CFP does Arkansas State get from being FBS?

Recruiting, Money, and Exposure are all huge differences from our time in D1AA.

Admittedly, we moved up because in the 1980's it was not financially viable to maintain a D1AA level football program thanks to Arkansas funding laws at the time. We chose to move to FBS rather than drop to D2, or drop football altogether. We spent the next 20 years trying to figure out how to be financially viable before finally figuring everything out a few years ago.

(12-29-2016 06:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 03:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 02:03 PM)YNot Wrote:  The Group of 5 schools have it WAY better than it used to be.

The bowl alliance system was created to keep non-p5 schools out of not just the national championship picture, but the big bowl games. The bowl alliance morphed into the BCS.

Then, the BCS was modified to allow a non-BCS school *conditional* access (top-12 ranking or top-16 and ranked higher than a BCS champion).

But then, in the CFP/NY deal, Aresco negotiated the Group of 5 *automatic* bid to the NY6 bowls.

To have automatic access to the Cotton, Peach, or Fiesta bowl is much better than what the non-BCS schools could hope for just 12-15 years ago.

Seems extremely dumb to toss aside the automatic G5 access. The next step is to push to expand the CFP and to get at least conditional G5 access (ie, top-12 ranking or something like that).

To institute a G5 playoff is to go the opposite and wrong direction.

Exactly. The trend is in the right direction. The next move should be to try for expansion of the playoff with guaranteed or conditional required G5 qualification for the playoff. For the time being, the G5 should be looking to work within the current bowl system to create a series of bowls that could serve as appropriate post season destinations for the G5 champions who do not make the access bowl. A separate G5 playoff is a terrible idea.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

To say that is to ignore the steady drumbeat of progress in attaining better access to the playoff and the major show case games connected with the each version of the college football championships. We started out with no access at all in the Bowl Coalition. The BCS allowed "BCS busters" contingent on meeting certain criteria. The CFP guaranteed a G5 access to a major game EVERY year without the required performance hurdles placed on non-power schools in the BCS years.

There is progress being made. Its slow and has taken the better part of 3 decades---but there is progress. Every version of the Bowl Coalition/BCS/CFP has allowed greater access for the G5. We just need to keep pounding on the door.

(12-29-2016 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 03:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 02:03 PM)YNot Wrote:  The Group of 5 schools have it WAY better than it used to be.

The bowl alliance system was created to keep non-p5 schools out of not just the national championship picture, but the big bowl games. The bowl alliance morphed into the BCS.

Then, the BCS was modified to allow a non-BCS school *conditional* access (top-12 ranking or top-16 and ranked higher than a BCS champion).

But then, in the CFP/NY deal, Aresco negotiated the Group of 5 *automatic* bid to the NY6 bowls.

To have automatic access to the Cotton, Peach, or Fiesta bowl is much better than what the non-BCS schools could hope for just 12-15 years ago.

Seems extremely dumb to toss aside the automatic G5 access. The next step is to push to expand the CFP and to get at least conditional G5 access (ie, top-12 ranking or something like that).

To institute a G5 playoff is to go the opposite and wrong direction.

Exactly. The trend is in the right direction. The next move should be to try for expansion of the playoff with guaranteed or conditional required G5 qualification for the playoff. For the time being, the G5 should be looking to work within the current bowl system to create a series of bowls that could serve as appropriate post season destinations for the G5 champions who do not make the access bowl. A separate G5 playoff is a terrible idea.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

To say that is to ignore the steady drumbeat of progress in attaining better access to the playoff and the major show case games connected with the each version of the college football championships. We started out with no access at all in the Bowl Coalition. The BCS allowed "BCS busters" contingent on meeting certain criteria. The CFP guaranteed a G5 access to a major game EVERY year without the required performance hurdles placed on non-power schools in the BCS years.

There is progress being made. Its slow and has taken the better part of 3 decades---but there is progress. Every version of the Bowl Coalition/BCS/CFP has allowed greater access for the G5. We just need to keep pounding on the door.

I'm not saying there has been progress compared to the BCS days. I was saying that the BCS rankings allowed the G5 schools to be in the top 8 and even had TCU in a hairs breath of the BCS champ game.
The committee isn't going to be as favorable.
The P5 will become a P4 before any thought of playoff expansion and then there is no need to expand past 4 teams. Although not auto-tie would be included, it really sets up the committee to just see the 4 power champs.

Instead of a G5 playoff, let's improve the bowls for the G5.
http://www.scout.com/college/arkansas-st...tter-bowls

(12-29-2016 07:27 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 03:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 02:03 PM)YNot Wrote:  The Group of 5 schools have it WAY better than it used to be.

The bowl alliance system was created to keep non-p5 schools out of not just the national championship picture, but the big bowl games. The bowl alliance morphed into the BCS.

Then, the BCS was modified to allow a non-BCS school *conditional* access (top-12 ranking or top-16 and ranked higher than a BCS champion).

But then, in the CFP/NY deal, Aresco negotiated the Group of 5 *automatic* bid to the NY6 bowls.

To have automatic access to the Cotton, Peach, or Fiesta bowl is much better than what the non-BCS schools could hope for just 12-15 years ago.

Seems extremely dumb to toss aside the automatic G5 access. The next step is to push to expand the CFP and to get at least conditional G5 access (ie, top-12 ranking or something like that).

To institute a G5 playoff is to go the opposite and wrong direction.

Exactly. The trend is in the right direction. The next move should be to try for expansion of the playoff with guaranteed or conditional required G5 qualification for the playoff. For the time being, the G5 should be looking to work within the current bowl system to create a series of bowls that could serve as appropriate post season destinations for the G5 champions who do not make the access bowl. A separate G5 playoff is a terrible idea.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

To say that is to ignore the steady drumbeat of progress in attaining better access to the playoff and the major show case games connected with the each version of the college football championships. We started out with no access at all in the Bowl Coalition. The BCS allowed "BCS busters" contingent on meeting certain criteria. The CFP guaranteed a G5 access to a major game EVERY year without the required performance hurdles placed on non-power schools in the BCS years.

There is progress being made. Its slow and has taken the better part of 3 decades---but there is progress. Every version of the Bowl Coalition/BCS/CFP has allowed greater access for the G5. We just need to keep pounding on the door.

I'm not saying there has been progress compared to the BCS days. I was saying that the BCS rankings allowed the G5 schools to be in the top 8 and even had TCU in a hairs breath of the BCS champ game.
The committee isn't going to be as favorable.
The P5 will become a P4 before any thought of playoff expansion and then there is no need to expand past 4 teams. Although not auto-tie would be included, it really sets up the committee to just see the 4 power champs.

Since the start of the BCS era (1998), there have been 8 schools who are still in the G5 who were ranked in the Top 15 at the time of bowl selection. Boise State made it 6 times, and all the others once each.

The teams are (with their highest BCS/CFP rank in parentheses):

Boise (6)
Tulane (10)
Hawaii (10)
Miami(O) (11)
Marshall (12)
BYU (14)
Nevada (15)
Western Michigan (15)

In addition, there are two teams currently in the G5 who were ranked in the Top 15 while they were in a BCS AQ conference [Cincy (3) and UCF (15)].

That doesn't bode well for future inclusion in a playoff by G5 schools.

(12-29-2016 08:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 07:27 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 03:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly. The trend is in the right direction. The next move should be to try for expansion of the playoff with guaranteed or conditional required G5 qualification for the playoff. For the time being, the G5 should be looking to work within the current bowl system to create a series of bowls that could serve as appropriate post season destinations for the G5 champions who do not make the access bowl. A separate G5 playoff is a terrible idea.

The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

To say that is to ignore the steady drumbeat of progress in attaining better access to the playoff and the major show case games connected with the each version of the college football championships. We started out with no access at all in the Bowl Coalition. The BCS allowed "BCS busters" contingent on meeting certain criteria. The CFP guaranteed a G5 access to a major game EVERY year without the required performance hurdles placed on non-power schools in the BCS years.

There is progress being made. Its slow and has taken the better part of 3 decades---but there is progress. Every version of the Bowl Coalition/BCS/CFP has allowed greater access for the G5. We just need to keep pounding on the door.

I'm not saying there has been progress compared to the BCS days. I was saying that the BCS rankings allowed the G5 schools to be in the top 8 and even had TCU in a hairs breath of the BCS champ game.
The committee isn't going to be as favorable.
The P5 will become a P4 before any thought of playoff expansion and then there is no need to expand past 4 teams. Although not auto-tie would be included, it really sets up the committee to just see the 4 power champs.

Since the start of the BCS era (1998), there have been 8 schools who are still in the G5 who were ranked in the Top 15 at the time of bowl selection. Boise State made it 6 times, and all the others once each.

The teams are (with their highest BCS/CFP rank in parentheses):

Boise (6)
Tulane (10)
Hawaii (10)
Miami(O) (11)
Marshall (12)
BYU (14)
Nevada (15)
Western Michigan (15)

In addition, there are two teams currently in the G5 who were ranked in the Top 15 while they were in a BCS AQ conference [Cincy (3) and UCF (15)].

That doesn't bode well for future inclusion in a playoff by G5 schools.

You missed TCU that was #3 and just missed the BCS Champ game. They were in the MW at that time.
Nevertheless, rankings will never be put that high with the committee.

I haven't read the thread yet but I'm assuming that certain powers that be should just want to join FCS. That's all that playoff would be looked as.

(12-29-2016 09:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 08:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 07:27 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 06:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The playoff isn't expanding. The P5 will become a P4 then every conference champ is in the playoffs. The g5 gets shutout....even though we are shutout already.
The old BCS system was fairer to us than the committee.

To say that is to ignore the steady drumbeat of progress in attaining better access to the playoff and the major show case games connected with the each version of the college football championships. We started out with no access at all in the Bowl Coalition. The BCS allowed "BCS busters" contingent on meeting certain criteria. The CFP guaranteed a G5 access to a major game EVERY year without the required performance hurdles placed on non-power schools in the BCS years.

There is progress being made. Its slow and has taken the better part of 3 decades---but there is progress. Every version of the Bowl Coalition/BCS/CFP has allowed greater access for the G5. We just need to keep pounding on the door.

I'm not saying there has been progress compared to the BCS days. I was saying that the BCS rankings allowed the G5 schools to be in the top 8 and even had TCU in a hairs breath of the BCS champ game.
The committee isn't going to be as favorable.
The P5 will become a P4 before any thought of playoff expansion and then there is no need to expand past 4 teams. Although not auto-tie would be included, it really sets up the committee to just see the 4 power champs.

Since the start of the BCS era (1998), there have been 8 schools who are still in the G5 who were ranked in the Top 15 at the time of bowl selection. Boise State made it 6 times, and all the others once each.

The teams are (with their highest BCS/CFP rank in parentheses):

Boise (6)
Tulane (10)
Hawaii (10)
Miami(O) (11)
Marshall (12)
BYU (14)
Nevada (15)
Western Michigan (15)

In addition, there are two teams currently in the G5 who were ranked in the Top 15 while they were in a BCS AQ conference [Cincy (3) and UCF (15)].

That doesn't bode well for future inclusion in a playoff by G5 schools.

You missed TCU that was #3 and just missed the BCS Champ game. They were in the MW at that time.
Nevertheless, rankings will never be put that high with the committee.

Exactly. The biggest problem with the current system is the committee. Its composition is virtually all P5 representatives. No G5 will ever get a fair shake in that room. Worse yet, for a G5 to get in, it means TWO P5 conferences are going to be left out. Any 2 P5 conferences will have roughly 40% of the vote in that room---the G5 have no votes in that room. Given that the difference between #4 and #5 is almost always going to be relatively small----and given the committees penchant for weighing different qualities/criteria in different weeks in an apparent shameless attempt to get the result they really want---no G5 is never going to be selected. The math in the room just doesn't work with the current composition of the membership.

I can tell you right now, the "eye test" and "SOS" will be the arguments used. This year, if Houston was undefeated, it would be "SOS", "eye test", and body of work. The 10 games against G5's would be the entire anti-Houston argument---assuming there was even a discussion. Lets be honest, no G5 has ever been in the top 10---so its probably presumptuous to assume an undefeated Houston would have been in the top 5 with this stacked, biased, rigged, bought and paid for selection committee.

The fix for this current CFP is easy. A 10 man selection committee comprised of one representative from each of the 10 FBS conferences. Do that, and everyone (even lowly G5's) has a legitimate fighting chance to make the playoff when deserving. Right now---its too rigged to for any G5 to overcome.

(12-29-2016 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Instead of a G5 playoff, let's improve the bowls for the G5.
http://www.scout.com/college/arkansas-st...tter-bowls

Match ups could be better. One issue is always going to be at least one G5 conference has as its stated bowl goal to obtain as many games vs the P5 as possible. Im sure others do as well. I still like my invitational idea---but that would require NCAA legislation to happen. Trying for better match ups just requires common sense...and yet, it still doesn't happen. I still like the idea of using some of the CFP money allocated to the G5 to create a pool of money designed to create a series of high payout "champions bowls" that would attract some good P5 opponents for the 4 G5 champs not in the access bowl. I don't know why NBC/ESPN/Fox/CBS wouldnt be interested in something like this. Hell, SDSU vs UH drew 3.5 million viewers. I think G5 champs vs good quality(8-10 win) P5's would draw even more.

(12-29-2016 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 11:31 AM)Chappy Wrote:  I think an 8-team playoff (Autonomy 5 champs, 1 Group if 5 rep, 2 best remaining teams) is just common sense.

TV will totally sign up for it.

Glad you agree with us.

(12-29-2016 12:23 PM)Shox Wrote:  Wow, G5 fans have battered woman syndrome. We are so used to fighting for scraps and taking orders from big brother that most just don't know better. Aren't you tired of groveling over the crumbs the P5 throws us to keep us quiet? Doesn't your school want to have the opportunity to play for a championship? This playoff would make for a 3 tier division I. FCS, G5, P5. All are DI, all could freely schedule each other and still do home and homes. If any of you played high school football, would you rather of competed at the top level knowing you would never make the playoffs or play at the level your school was at knowing you could make a run in the playoffs?

I could see where a playoff could be in the G5's interest.

1) 12 team playoff. 5 conference champions with the other 7 picked by a committee. The top 4 seeds get a first round bye. ESPN/NBC/Fox whomever is interested in it can be a talking head for the Top 4 seeds all season.

2) With a 12 team playoff eliminate the G5 bowl games. A G5 school not picked for the playoff would be eligible to play in a P5 hosted bowl game. Another 4-5 schools from the G5 get a chance to play in the post season. This way a G5 will need to be probably at least 7-5 to land a bowl so it makes it more special. BYU and Army probably only need 6-6 but they've got fans.

3) The G5 currently get 100 million as part of the CFP. Let's say Fox comes in and offers 250 million for a 13 game package (6 first round, 4 second round, 2 semifinals, 1 finals). First and second round are existing G5 bowl games with the semifinals and finals on neutral sites.

Round One (Dec 27th-29th)
Round Two (Jan 3rd-Jan 5th)
Semifinals (Jan 12th)
Finals (Jan 17th)

Pushing the playoff later to eliminate all of the pre-christmas G5 games that we all find so annoying.

4) Call it the Fox College Football Playoff. Make for a case of two FBS champions. Think about how boxing does it, there are multiple sanctioned titles.

I think there would be something to be said for making the P5/G5 into an AFL/NFL thing. It would really tick off ESPN that is for sure which is the entire point.

(12-29-2016 09:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Instead of a G5 playoff, let's improve the bowls for the G5.
http://www.scout.com/college/arkansas-st...tter-bowls

Match ups could be better. One issue is always going to be at least one G5 conference has as its stated bowl goal to obtain as many games vs the P5 as possible. Im sure others do as well. I still like my invitational idea---but that would require NCAA legislation to happen. Trying for better match ups just requires common sense...and yet, it still doesn't happen. I still like the idea of using some of the CFP money allocated to the G5 to create a pool of money designed to create a series of high payout "champions bowls" that would attract some good P5 opponents for the 4 G5 champs not in the access bowl. I don't know why NBC/ESPN/Fox/CBS wouldnt be interested in something like this. Hell, SDSU vs UH drew 3.5 million viewers. I think G5 champs vs good quality(8-10 win) P5's would draw even more.

All you are talking about here is having the number 2, 3, 4, 5 rated G5 leagues pit their champs against each other. I'm not seeing how it hurts the AAC since in most years their champ will be in the access bowl.

Have the games on December 29th right before the main card bowls of the CFP. Make a nice payout of a few million for the games.

I like the Fox College Football Playoff (G5 Playoff) idea to create a parallel champion but I would take G5 champion bowls over the current system as well.

(12-29-2016 10:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 09:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Instead of a G5 playoff, let's improve the bowls for the G5.
http://www.scout.com/college/arkansas-st...tter-bowls

Match ups could be better. One issue is always going to be at least one G5 conference has as its stated bowl goal to obtain as many games vs the P5 as possible. Im sure others do as well. I still like my invitational idea---but that would require NCAA legislation to happen. Trying for better match ups just requires common sense...and yet, it still doesn't happen. I still like the idea of using some of the CFP money allocated to the G5 to create a pool of money designed to create a series of high payout "champions bowls" that would attract some good P5 opponents for the 4 G5 champs not in the access bowl. I don't know why NBC/ESPN/Fox/CBS wouldnt be interested in something like this. Hell, SDSU vs UH drew 3.5 million viewers. I think G5 champs vs good quality(8-10 win) P5's would draw even more.

All you are talking about here is having the number 2, 3, 4, 5 rated G5 leagues pit their champs against each other. I'm not seeing how it hurts the AAC since in most years their champ will be in the access bowl.

Have the games on December 29th right before the main card bowls of the CFP. Make a nice payout of a few million for the games.

I like the Fox College Football Playoff (G5 Playoff) idea to create a parallel champion but I would take G5 champion bowls over the current system as well.

Correct. You'll need to get the MW champ to give up the Las Vegas Bowl vs the Pac12. You'll also need to have the CUSA champ to give up their P5 game vs the Big12/Big10 in the HOD Bowl. Then, in years the AAC doesn't win the access bowl, you'll also need to convince thier champ to play a random G5 champ instead of a P5 in the Military/St Pete/Birmingham/Ft Worth Bowls.

Personally, I think that's going to be MUCH harder sell than you think. You know, the Sunbelt and MAC used to do that each year---and they quit doing it. I think that was driven by the NOLA Bowl wanting to sell tickets---so they basically wanted ULL regardless of who the Sunbelt champ was. Another issue you will have with this plan is nobody is going to want to travel west to play a MW champ and the MW isn't going to be crazy about going east to play another G5 champ when they could play a Pac12 team in Vegas. My guess is this fairly simple plan would end up with a lot of resistance for a bunch of selfish issues that have little to do with what makes a good tv matchup. It could happen (common sense occasionally prevails)---but TV would probably have to ante up much more than they are currently willing to spend for G5 product in order to smooth over the resistance.

(12-29-2016 09:35 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I haven't read the thread yet but I'm assuming that certain powers that be should just want to join FCS. That's all that playoff would be looked as.

The idea with a G5 playoff is structure an alternate post season within FBS instead of P5/CFP scraps. It's champion would be the Fox champion of FBS while the P5 would have its ESPN champion.

G5 pulls out of the ESPN bowl fest where it loses money sending 6-6 teams.

G5 would have its own poll and top 4 seed discussion on Fox. Parallel post season.

(12-29-2016 10:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 10:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 09:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Instead of a G5 playoff, let's improve the bowls for the G5.
http://www.scout.com/college/arkansas-st...tter-bowls

Match ups could be better. One issue is always going to be at least one G5 conference has as its stated bowl goal to obtain as many games vs the P5 as possible. Im sure others do as well. I still like my invitational idea---but that would require NCAA legislation to happen. Trying for better match ups just requires common sense...and yet, it still doesn't happen. I still like the idea of using some of the CFP money allocated to the G5 to create a pool of money designed to create a series of high payout "champions bowls" that would attract some good P5 opponents for the 4 G5 champs not in the access bowl. I don't know why NBC/ESPN/Fox/CBS wouldnt be interested in something like this. Hell, SDSU vs UH drew 3.5 million viewers. I think G5 champs vs good quality(8-10 win) P5's would draw even more.

All you are talking about here is having the number 2, 3, 4, 5 rated G5 leagues pit their champs against each other. I'm not seeing how it hurts the AAC since in most years their champ will be in the access bowl.

Have the games on December 29th right before the main card bowls of the CFP. Make a nice payout of a few million for the games.

I like the Fox College Football Playoff (G5 Playoff) idea to create a parallel champion but I would take G5 champion bowls over the current system as well.

Correct. You'll need to get the MW champ to give up the Las Vegas Bowl vs the Pac12. You'll also need to have the CUSA champ to give up their P5 game vs the Big12/Big10 in the HOD Bowl. Then, in years the AAC doesn't win the access bowl, you'll also need to convince thier champ to play a random G5 champ instead of a P5 in the Military/St Pete/Birmingham/Ft Worth Bowls.

Personally, I think that's going to be MUCH harder sell than you think.

I like the idea of the MWC champ going to Las Vegas vs. G5 champ and the AAC champ going to Miami vs. G5 champ by default.

Then the MAC, CUSA, SBC champs find slots in Miami or Las Vegas, pending matchup.

The AAC or MWC don't have anything better for their non-access bowl champion.

(12-29-2016 10:48 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 10:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 10:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 09:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 08:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Instead of a G5 playoff, let's improve the bowls for the G5.
http://www.scout.com/college/arkansas-st...tter-bowls

Match ups could be better. One issue is always going to be at least one G5 conference has as its stated bowl goal to obtain as many games vs the P5 as possible. Im sure others do as well. I still like my invitational idea---but that would require NCAA legislation to happen. Trying for better match ups just requires common sense...and yet, it still doesn't happen. I still like the idea of using some of the CFP money allocated to the G5 to create a pool of money designed to create a series of high payout "champions bowls" that would attract some good P5 opponents for the 4 G5 champs not in the access bowl. I don't know why NBC/ESPN/Fox/CBS wouldnt be interested in something like this. Hell, SDSU vs UH drew 3.5 million viewers. I think G5 champs vs good quality(8-10 win) P5's would draw even more.

All you are talking about here is having the number 2, 3, 4, 5 rated G5 leagues pit their champs against each other. I'm not seeing how it hurts the AAC since in most years their champ will be in the access bowl.

Have the games on December 29th right before the main card bowls of the CFP. Make a nice payout of a few million for the games.

I like the Fox College Football Playoff (G5 Playoff) idea to create a parallel champion but I would take G5 champion bowls over the current system as well.

Correct. You'll need to get the MW champ to give up the Las Vegas Bowl vs the Pac12. You'll also need to have the CUSA champ to give up their P5 game vs the Big12/Big10 in the HOD Bowl. Then, in years the AAC doesn't win the access bowl, you'll also need to convince thier champ to play a random G5 champ instead of a P5 in the Military/St Pete/Birmingham/Ft Worth Bowls.

Personally, I think that's going to be MUCH harder sell than you think.

I like the idea of the MWC champ going to Las Vegas vs. G5 champ and the AAC champ going to Miami vs. G5 champ by default.

Then the MAC, CUSA, SBC champs find slots in Miami or Las Vegas, pending matchup.

The AAC or MWC don't have anything better for their non-access bowl champion.

My guess is the AAC champ would rather play a P5 close to their school, So, Temple would opt for the Military Bowl. A Houston champ would opt for Ft Worth or Birmingham. A USF champion would prefer St Pete or Birmingham. I could be wrong, but I believe the typical G5 fan bases would rather play a P5 if the opportunity is available. Because of their current bowl ties, the MW, AAC, and CUSA usually have those opportunities.

(12-29-2016 10:44 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 09:35 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I haven't read the thread yet but I'm assuming that certain powers that be should just want to join FCS. That's all that playoff would be looked as.

The idea with a G5 playoff is structure an alternate post season within FBS instead of P5/CFP scraps. It's champion would be the Fox champion of FBS while the P5 would have its ESPN champion.

G5 pulls out of the ESPN bowl fest where it loses money sending 6-6 teams.

G5 would have its own poll and top 4 seed discussion on Fox. Parallel post season.

No one is gonna take that seriously. The biggest schools in the biggest states are the majority of the P5 and the only flagship schools in the G5 are in sparsely populated Western states, thus there's a reason they're the P5. Rice and Tulane are the only academic powers (I mean REAL academic powers, not just highly rated in a few areas) in the G5, so the power lies where it should. Is some of that because they're trying to hang on to their status? Certainly but much of it was because these were the biggest, most powerful schools to begin with.