Next contract after no G5 gets close to the playoffs. Why include them in the payouts?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Don't sweat it MJG, the final separation will take place when y,all expand to an 8 team playoff

(01-10-2017 07:16 PM)MJG Wrote:  Next contract after no G5 gets close to the playoffs. Why include them in the payouts?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

For the same reason sharks tolerate remoras instead of eating them. It's a symbiotic relationship.

The P5 schools need the G5 schools as FBS opponents they can usually beat. That makes it mathematically possible for the majority of P5 schools to finish each season with winning FBS records, go to bowl games, keep their fans happy, prop up their TV ratings and keep their coaches and athletic directors employed. Americans love winners.

In return the P5 gives the G5 a portion of CFP money. Call it a payoff or call it enabling money to help the G5 stay marginally competitive. Either way it's not a big price for the P5 to pay to keep the arrangement going.

It was never intended that Division 1-A (FBS) would be bifurcated into two groups.

The MAC and Big West were the two lowest on the totem poll but they had the Raisin Bowl or Las Vegas Bowl to send their champ. At a time when there was about 20 bowl games and making a bowl still had some meaning.

The Bowl Alliance was nothing more than a mechanism to coordinate Top Bowls for a number 1 vs. 2 matchup. At that time bowls had more flexibility as to who they could take so the idea that it was only for certain conferences wasn't perpetuated.

BCS continued the consolidation. BYU's strong finishes in the 80's and 90's put a Top 6 rule for guaranteed participation. Strength of schedule was factored in for the first time after a few seasons it became apparent that unless your conference was a BCS automatic qualifier there was almost no mathematical shot of placing a school in it.

It changed recruiting massively. CUSA if I recall had a winning record against the SEC the first year of the BCS. Within 5 years recruiting died at most MWC, WAC, CUSA schools because they couldn't play for a BCS bowl.

Then the Top 12/16 rule came into effect. This helped Boise State giving it a chance rolling through a decimated WAC. The same for TCU's rise in the decimated WAC, CUSA and then MWC. TCU of course was boosted by SMU's death penalty which flipped recruiting.

The stature of BCS made for larger TV contracts, media deals and overall revenue which the competition for resources triggered realignment. The CFP is just the cherry on top as the P5 cashed in with an expanded post season structure.

The P5/G5 story to summarize it:

1. P5 choked off G5 recruiting with the BCS autobids leading to P5 to becoming dominant. CUSA and MWC were formed to join the club but never broke through.

2. The P5 then with total control then cash in to put themselves out of reach of the G5 conferences. Enough cash to buy off the G5 conferences for their participation.

The P5/G5 split was never intentional but a byproduct of market forces. Media embraced the categories to make it worse.

No one seems to think this is a possibility. G5 fans always point to the CFP payouts as a reason to close FBS to any new members or conferences. While Nodak thinks the P5 will help add teams for cheaper payouts for home games.
Eliminating the G5 money is an option even if it isn't likely.


Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Six teams is the next playoff set up. One at large theoretically could be G5 (Not happening) and five conference champs.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

No. P5 needs the G5 as a voting block when it comes to other NCAA voting matters.

The money has grown for the G5.

The G5 will between academic, bowl pool and performance money make more than the entire BCS payout in its final year this year. Its a 30/70 split G5/P5. The deal was so lucrative they could share the wealth.

We've gone from 4 to 5 to now 6 major bowls in the CFP. I seriously doubt the next deal after the CFP will be worth less. What they'll probably try to do is expand to 8 or 10 bowls with a longer 8 or 10 year bowl cycle so they can guarantee for themselves more money.

(01-10-2017 08:29 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  No. P5 needs the G5 as a voting block when it comes to other NCAA voting matters.

G5's have become junior partners for the system.

I think the question is will the CFP grow to a NY8 or NY10 and throw the G5 more slots while still giving a 30/70 split on the money.

They would get at-large slots for their champions and not have designated slots as the P5 in particular games or a real ability to place multiple teams in the CFP.

When you think about it p-5 schools are essentially playing down 2 levels in FCS games. So maybe we should allow the g-5 to schedule d-2 to make up for the injustice.

(01-10-2017 09:39 PM)p23570 Wrote:  When you think about it p-5 schools are essentially playing down 2 levels in FCS games. So maybe we should allow the g-5 to schedule d-2 to make up for the injustice.

The G5 isn't a level down.

It just doesn't have any of the 70,000+ seater football factories included in it.

Most are no different than a run of the mill ACC school in football. That is what the AAC basically is an ACC without a FSU and Clemson in it.

No big guys = little guys TV contract

(01-10-2017 08:24 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It was never intended that Division 1-A (FBS) would be bifurcated into two groups.

The MAC and Big West were the two lowest on the totem poll but they had the Raisin Bowl or Las Vegas Bowl to send their champ. At a time when there was about 20 bowl games and making a bowl still had some meaning.

The Bowl Alliance was nothing more than a mechanism to coordinate Top Bowls for a number 1 vs. 2 matchup. At that time bowls had more flexibility as to who they could take so the idea that it was only for certain conferences wasn't perpetuated.

BCS continued the consolidation. BYU's strong finishes in the 80's and 90's put a Top 6 rule for guaranteed participation. Strength of schedule was factored in for the first time after a few seasons it became apparent that unless your conference was a BCS automatic qualifier there was almost no mathematical shot of placing a school in it.

It changed recruiting massively. CUSA if I recall had a winning record against the SEC the first year of the BCS. Within 5 years recruiting died at most MWC, WAC, CUSA schools because they couldn't play for a BCS bowl.

Then the Top 12/16 rule came into effect. This helped Boise State giving it a chance rolling through a decimated WAC. The same for TCU's rise in the decimated WAC, CUSA and then MWC. TCU of course was boosted by SMU's death penalty which flipped recruiting.

The stature of BCS made for larger TV contracts, media deals and overall revenue which the competition for resources triggered realignment. The CFP is just the cherry on top as the P5 cashed in with an expanded post season structure.

The P5/G5 story to summarize it:

1. P5 choked off G5 recruiting with the BCS autobids leading to P5 to becoming dominant. CUSA and MWC were formed to join the club but never broke through.

2. The P5 then with total control then cash in to put themselves out of reach of the G5 conferences. Enough cash to buy off the G5 conferences for their participation.

The P5/G5 split was never intentional but a byproduct of market forces. Media embraced the categories to make it worse.

You make it sound as if there were ever a time when the schools now in what is known as the P5 weren't dominant. That's revisionist history.

How much money were G5 schools making from the bowl system before the BCS? I'm guessing it wasn't much.

(01-10-2017 09:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 09:39 PM)p23570 Wrote:  When you think about it p-5 schools are essentially playing down 2 levels in FCS games. So maybe we should allow the g-5 to schedule d-2 to make up for the injustice.

The G5 isn't a level down.

It just doesn't have any of the 70,000+ seater football factories included in it.

Most are no different than a run of the mill ACC school in football. That is what the AAC basically is an ACC without a FSU and Clemson in it.

No big guys = little guys TV contract

If you see it that way so be it.

I see a distinct different level of football in g-5. It's a level down in almost every way with a small check and 1 guaranteed bowl spot in exchange for not having any shot at a championship and giving a boost to p-5 programs.

Has nothing to do with attendance. Nothing.

BC, Wake, and Cuse all get a p-5 check.

Some G5 schools are getting paid more money than the rest. The top G5 schools who are very competitive gets more money for playing P5 because those schools could sell tickets like Boise State, Houston and so forth. Both BYU and Boise State along with the military academies also get a little more money for tv rights for the Arm Forces Network.

(01-10-2017 09:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 08:24 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It was never intended that Division 1-A (FBS) would be bifurcated into two groups.

The MAC and Big West were the two lowest on the totem poll but they had the Raisin Bowl or Las Vegas Bowl to send their champ. At a time when there was about 20 bowl games and making a bowl still had some meaning.

The Bowl Alliance was nothing more than a mechanism to coordinate Top Bowls for a number 1 vs. 2 matchup. At that time bowls had more flexibility as to who they could take so the idea that it was only for certain conferences wasn't perpetuated.

BCS continued the consolidation. BYU's strong finishes in the 80's and 90's put a Top 6 rule for guaranteed participation. Strength of schedule was factored in for the first time after a few seasons it became apparent that unless your conference was a BCS automatic qualifier there was almost no mathematical shot of placing a school in it.

It changed recruiting massively. CUSA if I recall had a winning record against the SEC the first year of the BCS. Within 5 years recruiting died at most MWC, WAC, CUSA schools because they couldn't play for a BCS bowl.

Then the Top 12/16 rule came into effect. This helped Boise State giving it a chance rolling through a decimated WAC. The same for TCU's rise in the decimated WAC, CUSA and then MWC. TCU of course was boosted by SMU's death penalty which flipped recruiting.

The stature of BCS made for larger TV contracts, media deals and overall revenue which the competition for resources triggered realignment. The CFP is just the cherry on top as the P5 cashed in with an expanded post season structure.

The P5/G5 story to summarize it:

1. P5 choked off G5 recruiting with the BCS autobids leading to P5 to becoming dominant. CUSA and MWC were formed to join the club but never broke through.

2. The P5 then with total control then cash in to put themselves out of reach of the G5 conferences. Enough cash to buy off the G5 conferences for their participation.

The P5/G5 split was never intentional but a byproduct of market forces. Media embraced the categories to make it worse.

You make it sound as if there were ever a time when the schools now in what is known as the P5 weren't dominant. That's revisionist history.

How much money were G5 schools making from the bowl system before the BCS? I'm guessing it wasn't much.

I'll give you an example.

I can remember with the PAC and WAC were almost even in strength top to bottom. PAC champ of course played in the Rose Bowl but WAC was considered major enough for some really good teams out of there and of course they made the cut for the CFA so that meant TV exposure.

MWC first 3-4 years was a solid top to bottom conference. Then it started becoming a BYU-Utah-TCU-AFA conference once BCS advantages set in for the PAC. All of the sudden PAC deadwood like Stanford and Oregon State were sitting in the Top 10.

The WAC often had as many autobids to the NCAAs as the PAC too as they had a presence in both major sports. WAC-16 in particular was regarded as a stout basketball league.

BCS really benefited the second tier PAC schools. The PAC then finished the job by taking Utah from the MWC and Colorado from the B12. Now the PAC has 4 schools in the Mountain Time Zone (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Ariz St) to absorb all the 3 star recruits in that region.

BCS helped a lot of traditional P5 doormats pull it together with the recruiting advantages. Its starting to go the other direction though with the CFP because its a return to a top heavy way of looking at college football.

(01-10-2017 10:11 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 09:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 09:39 PM)p23570 Wrote:  When you think about it p-5 schools are essentially playing down 2 levels in FCS games. So maybe we should allow the g-5 to schedule d-2 to make up for the injustice.

The G5 isn't a level down.

It just doesn't have any of the 70,000+ seater football factories included in it.

Most are no different than a run of the mill ACC school in football. That is what the AAC basically is an ACC without a FSU and Clemson in it.

No big guys = little guys TV contract

If you see it that way so be it.

I see a distinct different level of football in g-5. It's a level down in almost every way with a small check and 1 guaranteed bowl spot in exchange for not having any shot at a championship and giving a boost to p-5 programs.

Has nothing to do with attendance. Nothing.

BC, Wake, and Cuse all get a p-5 check.

Take Texas & Oklahoma out of the B12.

Take Florida State & Clemson out of the ACC.

That P5 check you are talking about goes away for BC, Wake, K-State and Baylor. At best it will be a Big East level check.

It also takes away BC, Wake, K-State and Baylor's chances of making a playoff if they even have chances now with a committee stacked against them.

No, P5->G5 is not the same as G5->FCS. P5->G5 is like G5->Top35 FCS. FCS drops pretty fast after their top rankings.

I'd personally like to see it on a team-by-team basis, not on a conference basis... broken up into 4 quadrants of 4 equal parts, based on past 4 years performance.

FBS (32 teams each):
- Level1 (Almost all P5; a few G5s)
- Level2 (Mostly P5; some G5s)
- Level3 (Mostly G5; some P5s)
- Level4 (Almost all G5; a few P5s)

In the end of course, ya gotta go by conference. So that's just a pipe dream.

P5 keep all CFP money? If it were to only stay as 4-teams, which it won't for a long time, I would see a push for that.

If they go for an 8-team playoff, there would NOT be a G5 auto-bid (there wasn't one in the NY5 BCS with 10 teams; but a partial Chance to which would be harder now).

Good news is, I think the 8-team playoff would be short-lasting. Why? Well, we have 12 teams making it to the "Big Stage" right now. With an 8-team playoff, you couldn't feasibly have 12 teams on a "Big Stage". 2 extra "big bowls" besides it? Wouldn't work, and wouldn't be seen as "BCS quality" with 8 of the 12 being in a playoff.

Which would, IMO, move things in a short period of time to a 12-team playoff, where it'd stop evolving for good. Basically, the current NY6 all being in a playoff... but the Top 4 instead of going to a playoff, they get a Bye. A G5 *would* get an auto-bid -- and they would have to give some of the money to them.

That being said, I don't see how that'd affect how finances are dispursed much. No way would NY-Bowls and/or Playoffs be evenly dispersed thru all teams in FBS. But having 12 teams, thus an obvious G5 in there, sure, some money would be trickled to the G5.

This is why there needs to be two FBS divisions with each division having a playoff of its own
The p5(axis division) could not stomach this and will push for a higher classification as to try and protect recruits tv money and ego
But this will be to no avail becouse the (allied division) can also re classify to same level and on and on

(01-10-2017 11:24 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  This is why there needs to be two FBS divisions with each division having a playoff of its own
The p5(axis division) could not stomach this and will push for a higher classification as to try and protect recruits tv money and ego
But this will be to no avail becouse the (allied division) can also re classify to same level and on and on

You would also have politicians screaming anti-trust against the P5. That is why the P5 should grab the top schools from each state that does not have a public school in the P5 conferences.

(01-10-2017 10:31 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:11 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 09:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 09:39 PM)p23570 Wrote:  When you think about it p-5 schools are essentially playing down 2 levels in FCS games. So maybe we should allow the g-5 to schedule d-2 to make up for the injustice.

The G5 isn't a level down.

It just doesn't have any of the 70,000+ seater football factories included in it.

Most are no different than a run of the mill ACC school in football. That is what the AAC basically is an ACC without a FSU and Clemson in it.

No big guys = little guys TV contract

If you see it that way so be it.

I see a distinct different level of football in g-5. It's a level down in almost every way with a small check and 1 guaranteed bowl spot in exchange for not having any shot at a championship and giving a boost to p-5 programs.

Has nothing to do with attendance. Nothing.

BC, Wake, and Cuse all get a p-5 check.

Take Texas & Oklahoma out of the B12.

Take Florida State & Clemson out of the ACC.

That P5 check you are talking about goes away for BC, Wake, K-State and Baylor. At best it will be a Big East level check.

It also takes away BC, Wake, K-State and Baylor's chances of making a playoff if they even have chances now with a committee stacked against them.

LOL. If you say so.