(07-09-2017 03:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Nothing would prevent such a conference structure, or even a conference 4-team playoff from that structure, now.

The only special thing that there is now is for a CCG to be exempt from the rule for maximum games in a regular season. IE, the CCG can be played as the 13th game for teams who have already played 12 games in the season.

The 3/4 division conference wouldn't qualify for that exemption .... but say you did 10 conf games during weeks 1-10 ... well, you could then have flexible scheduling so that the top four teams played in a bracket during weeks 11 and 12, with the rest of the schools playing two more conference games to round out their schedules.

Incorrect.

Current rules limit a conference to JUST 2 divisions. Thats it. So a 3 or more division structure is illegal. The only way to get around it like the old WAC, where they had 4 pods---but in any given year the pods essentially combined to form 2 8-team divisions and teams in each division played a round robin within those 2 pods. Effectively, it was a 2 divisions conference with rotating membership within the two divisions. That doesnt help. For a conference to exceed 18 teams, while maintaining an 8 game schedule--you either need to be allowed more than 2 divisions or you need relief from playing a full round robin in each division.

A 20 team conference without divisions would have to play a round robin with the entire conference---thats 19 games per team. Not going to happen.

A 20 team conference with 2 divisions could play 9 conference games with no crossovers---thats possible---but not attractive. A 24 team conference would require teams to play a minimum of 11 conference games to qualify for a CCG under current rules. Nobody wants that.

Bottom line---the current rules governing CCG play work against the formation of large G5 conferences in excess of 16-18 schools. At 18---you could play an 8-game schedule with no crossovers. With 16, you could play 8 conference games and still work in one crossover game. Honestly---16 is probably the optimum number for a best of the rest nationwide conference at this point in time.

The scheduling possibilities within a G5 nationwide conference get a whole lot more interesting when conference championship games are completely deregulated. But--barring that---a simple modification allowing UP TO FOUR divisions within a conference would make a nationwide G5 conference very plausible.

I'll gladly admit I am wrong if you can produce the rule number requiring a maximum of two divisions.

The rule I think you're thinking of is a rule allowing a CCG to be exempt. But like I said, will happily admit I was wrong.

(07-09-2017 03:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'll gladly admit I am wrong if you can produce the rule number requiring a maximum of two divisions.

The rule I think you're thinking of is a rule allowing a CCG to be exempt. But like I said, will happily admit I was wrong.

Thats been the same since the rule was originally created. The rule specifically states that the conference can divide into TWO divisions for the purposes of a championship game. There is no allowance for more than two. The ACC wanted that restriction to be removed when the part requiring 12 teams to divide into divisions was removed. The proposed deregulation of the two division requirement failed. You'll need to find a link to a pdf of the NCAA D1 manual. Essentially, the most recent rule change eliminated the requirement for 12 teams to hold a CCG. It eliminated the requirement to split into divisions (provided you play a complete round robin of the entire conference) in order to hold a CCG. You can still divide into divisions---but the rule still specifically states that a conference can split into TWO divisions for the purposes of a championship game provided you play a full round robin in each division. No provision exists for splitting into more than 2 divisions.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

Football Bowl Subdivision conferences with fewer than 12 members will be able to hold a conference championship football game in addition to the allowed 12 regular-season games, the Division I Council decided Wednesday, and such conferences will have two ways to meet scheduling requirements.

Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game.

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

Well there ARE things that COULD be done. They won't happen but they are FEASIBLE.

1. United television contract, everyone gets a base share and payments are based on the network and broadcast window.

2. G5 "Premier League". NCAA rules require an FBS league to have 8 full members playing football within the conference. The "Premier League" would be a football only "G6" league (or "P6" :) ) To form the league you rank everyone based on say the last three years of computer ratings. Ideally you want the 9 best or 12 best but you can't do that because it means a league would fall under the 8 member rule, so you cap how many can come from each league. MWC, AAC, and MAC could "contribute" up to four teams each, CUSA could "contribute" no more than 6 and Sun Belt no more than 2. So you take the list and you strike the teams rated 5-12 in AAC, MWC, MAC, 7-14 in CUSA, and 3-10 from Sun Belt and just take the 9 or 12 highest rated teams. Each league "contributing" a team gets one share of equity for each team "contributed". At the end of the season run the numbers again and redo it.

No realistic chance anyone does that, but any of it can happen under NCAA rules.

(07-09-2017 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well there ARE things that COULD be done. They won't happen but they are FEASIBLE.

1. United television contract, everyone gets a base share and payments are based on the network and broadcast window.

2. G5 "Premier League". NCAA rules require an FBS league to have 8 full members playing football within the conference. The "Premier League" would be a football only "G6" league (or "P6" :) ) To form the league you rank everyone based on say the last three years of computer ratings. Ideally you want the 9 best or 12 best but you can't do that because it means a league would fall under the 8 member rule, so you cap how many can come from each league. MWC, AAC, and MAC could "contribute" up to four teams each, CUSA could "contribute" no more than 6 and Sun Belt no more than 2. So you take the list and you strike the teams rated 5-12 in AAC, MWC, MAC, 7-14 in CUSA, and 3-10 from Sun Belt and just take the 9 or 12 highest rated teams. Each league "contributing" a team gets one share of equity for each team "contributed". At the end of the season run the numbers again and redo it.

No realistic chance anyone does that, but any of it can happen under NCAA rules.

Except the "Premier League" wouldnt have a connection to the CFP or the access bowl...or NCAA autobids....so, thats not an option.

A Untied TV agreement is possible---but more likely it jsut equalizes income. Those at the bottom of the current G5 media earnings would do much better, those at the top probably see little change or a slight drop. The deal would have to be 130 million just for the AAC/MW schools to break even (assumning its divided evenly). The payment window system MIGHT help---but likely not for the bottom half of the AAC/MW schools. Additionally, rhe AAC/MW schools would lose alot of ability to negotiate their guaranteed exposure. Given the broadcast window system wouldnt guarantee income----I doubt university presidents with the most to lose would be inclined to take that risk. The AAC/MW schools are probably better off seeing what they can land on their own...at least for now.

I do think the idea might help the SB/CUSA to do better if the networks cant play one against the other. Those two together would control 37% of the G5 inventory and almost 20 of all FBS inventory.

(07-09-2017 07:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well there ARE things that COULD be done. They won't happen but they are FEASIBLE.

1. United television contract, everyone gets a base share and payments are based on the network and broadcast window.

2. G5 "Premier League". NCAA rules require an FBS league to have 8 full members playing football within the conference. The "Premier League" would be a football only "G6" league (or "P6" :) ) To form the league you rank everyone based on say the last three years of computer ratings. Ideally you want the 9 best or 12 best but you can't do that because it means a league would fall under the 8 member rule, so you cap how many can come from each league. MWC, AAC, and MAC could "contribute" up to four teams each, CUSA could "contribute" no more than 6 and Sun Belt no more than 2. So you take the list and you strike the teams rated 5-12 in AAC, MWC, MAC, 7-14 in CUSA, and 3-10 from Sun Belt and just take the 9 or 12 highest rated teams. Each league "contributing" a team gets one share of equity for each team "contributed". At the end of the season run the numbers again and redo it.

No realistic chance anyone does that, but any of it can happen under NCAA rules.

Except the "Premier League" wouldnt have a connection to the CFP or the access bowl...or NCAA autobids....so, thats not an option.

A Untied TV agreement is possible---but more likely it jsut equalizes income. Those at the bottom of the current G5 media earnings would do much better, those at the top probably see little change or a slight drop. The deal would have to be 130 million just for the AAC/MW schools to break even (assumning its divided evenly). The payment window system MIGHT help---but likely not for the bottom half of the AAC/MW schools. Additionally, rhe AAC/MW schools would lose alot of ability to negotiate their guaranteed exposure. Given the broadcast window system wouldnt guarantee income----I doubt university presidents with the most to lose would be inclined to take that risk. The AAC/MW schools are probably better off seeing what they can land on their own...at least for now.

I do think the idea might help the SB/CUSA to do better if the networks cant play one against the other. Those two together would control 37% of the G5 inventory and almost 20 of all FBS inventory.

But the "Premier League" schools would remain members of their respective leagues... who have CFP contracts.

You can't screw it up by arguing the premier league gets its own cut.

But remember, the money distribution for G5 was cooked up by the G5 leagues and the CFP just rubber stamped it. They even approved a change to it, switching from $1 million per school up to 12 to $1 million per school up to 10 throwing the rest into the performance pool.

As long as you aren't asking for a sixth vote in the CFP or in the NCAA or more money in the G5 pool, they are going to bless most anything. You can take the performance pool and if you want, you can just divide the performance pool based on how many schools you have in the premier league.

Arguably the P5 would rather meet the champion of a "showcase" league that has larger brand awareness.

Now if I'm Mike Aresco I don't want to see that happen. There is no real worry about Houston playing Boise and down the road saying hey I'd like to form a conference with Boise but if games against top Sun Belt and CUSA in the region prove popular, that could pose a real threat to the stability of the league.

(07-10-2017 12:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  But the "Premier League" schools would remain members of their respective leagues... who have CFP contracts.

But how do the winner of the Premier League claim the championship of its original league? Remember that the Access Bowl representative is not the "best Go5 school", but the "Go5 conference champion ranked most highly by the CFP playoff committee".

(07-09-2017 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well there ARE things that COULD be done. They won't happen but they are FEASIBLE.

1. United television contract, everyone gets a base share and payments are based on the network and broadcast window.

2. G5 "Premier League". NCAA rules require an FBS league to have 8 full members playing football within the conference. The "Premier League" would be a football only "G6" league (or "P6" :) ) To form the league you rank everyone based on say the last three years of computer ratings. Ideally you want the 9 best or 12 best but you can't do that because it means a league would fall under the 8 member rule, so you cap how many can come from each league. MWC, AAC, and MAC could "contribute" up to four teams each, CUSA could "contribute" no more than 6 and Sun Belt no more than 2. So you take the list and you strike the teams rated 5-12 in AAC, MWC, MAC, 7-14 in CUSA, and 3-10 from Sun Belt and just take the 9 or 12 highest rated teams. Each league "contributing" a team gets one share of equity for each team "contributed". At the end of the season run the numbers again and redo it.

No realistic chance anyone does that, but any of it can happen under NCAA rules.

But, you do get some schools not from the G5 that are ranked higher in the computer rankings from the FCS level. North Dakota State made appearance in the final AP Poll a number of times. Eastern Washington also made an appearance. James Madison last year as well. Appalachian State also showed up which was the year they beat Michigan and ended the season beating Delaware in the FCS playoffs. I still think that the Southland, Big Sky, MVFC, Southern and CAA should be considered FBS conferences since those are the conferences that could beat FBS schools every year. You do get an Jacksonville State, Fordham, Liberty and sometimes an HBCU school making an upset.

But, you got to think that some FCS schools in key spots could help sell a TV package for the G5. Maybe a couple of D2 like Azusa Pacific to get the LA tv market.

Possible future G5 members?
Towson-Baltimore
Albany
Richmond
Stony Brook
Villanova (Temple cross town rivals)
Abilene Christian
UCA
Lamar
McNeese State
Sam Houston State
SFA
Southeast Missouri State
Tennessee State
Central Connecticut State
Robert Morris
Alabama State
Jackson State
Eastern Washington
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
North Dakota State
South Dakota or South Dakota State the State school seems to be better at both men's basketball and football.
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Portland State
Sacramento State
Cal. Poly
Cal.-Davis
Illinois State
Indiana State
Missouri State
Northern Iowa
Youngstown State
Chattanooga
The Citadel
East Tennessee State
Furman
Mercer
VMI
Wofford
Butler
Dayton
Duquesne
Valparaiso
Fordham
Stetson
Jacksonville
North Carolina A&T
Delaware State
Delaware
James Madison
Howard
Norfolk State
North Carolina Central
Savannah State
Florida A&M
Bethune-Cookman
Charleston Southern
Kennesaw State
North Alabama
Holy Cross
Lehigh
Georgetown

D2 in key areas.
Azusa Pacific
Lock Haven
West Chester
Bellarmine if they add football.
Florida Tech
West Florida
Valdosta State
St. Cloud State
Ferris State
Michigan Tech
Mankato State
Northern Michigan
Minn.-Duluth
Colorado Mesa
Carson-Newman
Texas A&M-Kingsville
Bloomsburg
Bowie State
Bridgeport
Charleston, WV.
Elizabeth City State
Fayetteville State
Gannon
Johnson C. Smith
Kentucky Wesleyan
Lincoln, Mo.
LIU-Post
Virginia Union
Wayne State, Mich.
Arkansas Tech
Harding
Henderson State
Ouachita Baptist
Southern Arkansas (Shreveport tv market)
Simon Fraser
Colorado Mines
Colorado State-Pueblo
New Haven
Albany State
Indianapolis
Fort Hays State
Washburn
Kentucky State
Assumption
Grand Valley State
Concordia-St. Paul
Concordia-Moorhead
Missouri Southern
Missouri Western
Eastern New Mexico
New Mexico Highlands
Western New Mexico
Le Moyne
Pace
Livingstone
U. of Mary
Ashland
Findlay
Central Oklahoma
NE Oklahoma State
SE Oklahoma State
SW Oklahoma State
Western Oregon
Cal., Penn.
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana, Pa.
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
Augustana
Black Hills State
South Dakota Mines
Sioux Falls
Angelo State
Midwestern State
Tarleton State
Texas A&M-Commerce
UTPB
West Texas A&M
Dixie State (Las Vegas market. Replacement if UNLV gets picked for a P5 conference.)
Central Washington
Shepherd
West Liberty
Wheeling Jesuit

Possible spots if schools add football?
Milwaukee (MAC)
George Mason
VCU
Boston U.
Vermont
Bellarmine (Louisville)
Columbus State
North Florida
Tampa
FGCU
Long Beach State
Fullerton State
Wichita State
Cal.-Irvine
East Bay State
University of Texas at Tyler

I am not saying they all could go FBS, but there are some choices if you really want to reach tv markets to sell a G5 package. Both the MWC and SBC do not have much population for where their schools are located. I do not know why the two southern Alabama schools want to block out North Alabama? North Alabama does reached a market that they do not reached. Tennessee

(07-10-2017 12:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 12:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  But the "Premier League" schools would remain members of their respective leagues... who have CFP contracts.

But how do the winner of the Premier League claim the championship of its original league? Remember that the Access Bowl representative is not the "best Go5 school", but the "Go5 conference champion ranked most highly by the CFP playoff committee".

My take on the Premier League by Arkstfan is that it is for media money/exposure only. If one of those teams is champ of their conference, which they remain a part of, they are treated as champ of their conference for Access Bowl purposes.

(07-10-2017 12:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 07:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well there ARE things that COULD be done. They won't happen but they are FEASIBLE.

1. United television contract, everyone gets a base share and payments are based on the network and broadcast window.

2. G5 "Premier League". NCAA rules require an FBS league to have 8 full members playing football within the conference. The "Premier League" would be a football only "G6" league (or "P6" :) ) To form the league you rank everyone based on say the last three years of computer ratings. Ideally you want the 9 best or 12 best but you can't do that because it means a league would fall under the 8 member rule, so you cap how many can come from each league. MWC, AAC, and MAC could "contribute" up to four teams each, CUSA could "contribute" no more than 6 and Sun Belt no more than 2. So you take the list and you strike the teams rated 5-12 in AAC, MWC, MAC, 7-14 in CUSA, and 3-10 from Sun Belt and just take the 9 or 12 highest rated teams. Each league "contributing" a team gets one share of equity for each team "contributed". At the end of the season run the numbers again and redo it.

No realistic chance anyone does that, but any of it can happen under NCAA rules.

Except the "Premier League" wouldnt have a connection to the CFP or the access bowl...or NCAA autobids....so, thats not an option.

A Untied TV agreement is possible---but more likely it jsut equalizes income. Those at the bottom of the current G5 media earnings would do much better, those at the top probably see little change or a slight drop. The deal would have to be 130 million just for the AAC/MW schools to break even (assumning its divided evenly). The payment window system MIGHT help---but likely not for the bottom half of the AAC/MW schools. Additionally, rhe AAC/MW schools would lose alot of ability to negotiate their guaranteed exposure. Given the broadcast window system wouldnt guarantee income----I doubt university presidents with the most to lose would be inclined to take that risk. The AAC/MW schools are probably better off seeing what they can land on their own...at least for now.

I do think the idea might help the SB/CUSA to do better if the networks cant play one against the other. Those two together would control 37% of the G5 inventory and almost 20 of all FBS inventory.

But the "Premier League" schools would remain members of their respective leagues... who have CFP contracts.

You can't screw it up by arguing the premier league gets its own cut.

But remember, the money distribution for G5 was cooked up by the G5 leagues and the CFP just rubber stamped it. They even approved a change to it, switching from $1 million per school up to 12 to $1 million per school up to 10 throwing the rest into the performance pool.

As long as you aren't asking for a sixth vote in the CFP or in the NCAA or more money in the G5 pool, they are going to bless most anything. You can take the performance pool and if you want, you can just divide the performance pool based on how many schools you have in the premier league.

Arguably the P5 would rather meet the champion of a "showcase" league that has larger brand awareness.

Now if I'm Mike Aresco I don't want to see that happen. There is no real worry about Houston playing Boise and down the road saying hey I'd like to form a conference with Boise but if games against top Sun Belt and CUSA in the region prove popular, that could pose a real threat to the stability of the league.

I guess I'm not following how your proposal works. The Premier league teams can't be part of their old league. To be an FBS conference you'd need 8 teams playing all sports together. How are they going to play all sports in the Premier League and still be part of thier old league? Plus wouldnt they have to be champion of a CFP signatory league to qualify for the G5 access slot. The G5 could split the money as they wish--but who is eligible to play in the game is spelled out in the CFP documents.

It's sounds more like something the G5 could float during the next CFP deal if they chose to.

(07-10-2017 07:04 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 12:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 12:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  But the "Premier League" schools would remain members of their respective leagues... who have CFP contracts.

But how do the winner of the Premier League claim the championship of its original league? Remember that the Access Bowl representative is not the "best Go5 school", but the "Go5 conference champion ranked most highly by the CFP playoff committee".

My take on the Premier League by Arkstfan is that it is for media money/exposure only. If one of those teams is champ of their conference, which they remain a part of, they are treated as champ of their conference for Access Bowl purposes.

Except the discussion is in terms of not "taking so many" that any existing Go5 conference falls below eight:

Quote: NCAA rules require an FBS league to have 8 full members playing football within the conference. The "Premier League" would be a football only "G6" league (or "P6" :) ) To form the league you rank everyone based on say the last three years of computer ratings. Ideally you want the 9 best or 12 best but you can't do that because it means a league would fall under the 8 member rule, so you cap how many can come from each league. MWC, AAC, and MAC could "contribute" up to four teams each, CUSA could "contribute" no more than 6 and Sun Belt no more than 2.

You can't both play a full conference schedule in your "home" conference and also play a full conference schedule in the "Premier League", since a conference schedule is over half a season. And if you don't have a conference champion of the "Premier League", then the whole point of picking a clear "best of the rest" champion with stronger market appeal falls over.

(07-10-2017 04:15 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well there ARE things that COULD be done. They won't happen but they are FEASIBLE.

1. United television contract, everyone gets a base share and payments are based on the network and broadcast window.

2. G5 "Premier League". NCAA rules require an FBS league to have 8 full members playing football within the conference. The "Premier League" would be a football only "G6" league (or "P6" :) ) To form the league you rank everyone based on say the last three years of computer ratings. Ideally you want the 9 best or 12 best but you can't do that because it means a league would fall under the 8 member rule, so you cap how many can come from each league. MWC, AAC, and MAC could "contribute" up to four teams each, CUSA could "contribute" no more than 6 and Sun Belt no more than 2. So you take the list and you strike the teams rated 5-12 in AAC, MWC, MAC, 7-14 in CUSA, and 3-10 from Sun Belt and just take the 9 or 12 highest rated teams. Each league "contributing" a team gets one share of equity for each team "contributed". At the end of the season run the numbers again and redo it.

No realistic chance anyone does that, but any of it can happen under NCAA rules.

But, you do get some schools not from the G5 that are ranked higher in the computer rankings from the FCS level. North Dakota State made appearance in the final AP Poll a number of times. Eastern Washington also made an appearance. James Madison last year as well. Appalachian State also showed up which was the year they beat Michigan and ended the season beating Delaware in the FCS playoffs. I still think that the Southland, Big Sky, MVFC, Southern and CAA should be considered FBS conferences since those are the conferences that could beat FBS schools every year. You do get an Jacksonville State, Fordham, Liberty and sometimes an HBCU school making an upset.

But, you got to think that some FCS schools in key spots could help sell a TV package for the G5. Maybe a couple of D2 like Azusa Pacific to get the LA tv market.

Possible future G5 members?
Towson-Baltimore
Albany
Richmond
Stony Brook
Villanova (Temple cross town rivals)
Abilene Christian
UCA
Lamar
McNeese State
Sam Houston State
SFA
Southeast Missouri State
Tennessee State
Central Connecticut State
Robert Morris
Alabama State
Jackson State
Eastern Washington
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
North Dakota State
South Dakota or South Dakota State the State school seems to be better at both men's basketball and football.
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Portland State
Sacramento State
Cal. Poly
Cal.-Davis
Illinois State
Indiana State
Missouri State
Northern Iowa
Youngstown State
Chattanooga
The Citadel
East Tennessee State
Furman
Mercer
VMI
Wofford
Butler
Dayton
Duquesne
Valparaiso
Fordham
Stetson
Jacksonville
North Carolina A&T
Delaware State
Delaware
James Madison
Howard
Norfolk State
North Carolina Central
Savannah State
Florida A&M
Bethune-Cookman
Charleston Southern
Kennesaw State
North Alabama
Holy Cross
Lehigh
Georgetown

D2 in key areas.
Azusa Pacific
Lock Haven
West Chester
Bellarmine if they add football.
Florida Tech
West Florida
Valdosta State
St. Cloud State
Ferris State
Michigan Tech
Mankato State
Northern Michigan
Minn.-Duluth
Colorado Mesa
Carson-Newman
Texas A&M-Kingsville
Bloomsburg
Bowie State
Bridgeport
Charleston, WV.
Elizabeth City State
Fayetteville State
Gannon
Johnson C. Smith
Kentucky Wesleyan
Lincoln, Mo.
LIU-Post
Virginia Union
Wayne State, Mich.
Arkansas Tech
Harding
Henderson State
Ouachita Baptist
Southern Arkansas (Shreveport tv market)
Simon Fraser
Colorado Mines
Colorado State-Pueblo
New Haven
Albany State
Indianapolis
Fort Hays State
Washburn
Kentucky State
Assumption
Grand Valley State
Concordia-St. Paul
Concordia-Moorhead
Missouri Southern
Missouri Western
Eastern New Mexico
New Mexico Highlands
Western New Mexico
Le Moyne
Pace
Livingstone
U. of Mary
Ashland
Findlay
Central Oklahoma
NE Oklahoma State
SE Oklahoma State
SW Oklahoma State
Western Oregon
Cal., Penn.
East Stroudsburg
Edinboro
Indiana, Pa.
Shippensburg
Slippery Rock
Augustana
Black Hills State
South Dakota Mines
Sioux Falls
Angelo State
Midwestern State
Tarleton State
Texas A&M-Commerce
UTPB
West Texas A&M
Dixie State (Las Vegas market. Replacement if UNLV gets picked for a P5 conference.)
Central Washington
Shepherd
West Liberty
Wheeling Jesuit

Possible spots if schools add football?
Milwaukee (MAC)
George Mason
VCU
Boston U.
Vermont
Bellarmine (Louisville)
Columbus State
North Florida
Tampa
FGCU
Long Beach State
Fullerton State
Wichita State
Cal.-Irvine
East Bay State
University of Texas at Tyler

I am not saying they all could go FBS, but there are some choices if you really want to reach tv markets to sell a G5 package. Both the MWC and SBC do not have much population for where their schools are located. I do not know why the two southern Alabama schools want to block out North Alabama? North Alabama does reached a market that they do not reached. Tennessee

Nice way to end a thread DavidSt. The same way you ruin every thread you post on huh? By cutting and pasting every single D-3 & D-2 school there is from a list on the internet. I didn't know there were 4 directional schools in Oklahoma though...so thanks for that.

(07-07-2017 08:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Truthfully I don't know that there is a whole lot of room for too many more G5/P5 tweeners like BYU. There are only so many games against true P5s to go around and many will at best only give 2 for 1s. If schools like SDSU, Boise St, BYU, and AFA are all Indy they are just going to end up playing against each other.

It wouldn't be a bad result for BYU, Boise, SDSU, AFA, and Hawaii to fill their November schedules playing each other. These are good matchups and you cut the weak MWC matchups in exchange for more P5 games.

SDSU could finish the season with Hawaii, Air Force, BYU, and Boise. With Hawaii in the mix and no conference, they would have the flexibility for games in Week 0 through early December. That's an upgrade from the status quo, which highlights SJSU, Nevada, and New Mexico down the stretch. Early season might include 2-3 PAC schools and 1-2 other P5 opponents. Throw in a couple of AAC opponents and that is a huge scheduling upgrade for the Aztecs, more excitement, better competition, and worthy of much better TV deal than what the MWC will give them.

(07-10-2017 09:39 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 08:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Truthfully I don't know that there is a whole lot of room for too many more G5/P5 tweeners like BYU. There are only so many games against true P5s to go around and many will at best only give 2 for 1s. If schools like SDSU, Boise St, BYU, and AFA are all Indy they are just going to end up playing against each other.

It wouldn't be a bad result for BYU, Boise, SDSU, AFA, and Hawaii to fill their November schedules playing each other. These are good matchups and you cut the weak MWC matchups in exchange for more P5 games.

SDSU could finish the season with Hawaii, Air Force, BYU, and Boise. With Hawaii in the mix and no conference, they would have the flexibility for games in Week 0 through early December. That's an upgrade from the status quo, which highlights SJSU, Nevada, and New Mexico down the stretch. Early season might include 2-3 PAC schools and 1-2 other P5 opponents. Throw in a couple of AAC opponents and that is a huge scheduling upgrade for the Aztecs, more excitement, better competition, and worthy of much better TV deal than what the MWC will give them.

So those MWC schools are going to give up their CFP money to join BYU in Indy land? I now see that most of this MWC Indy talk is coming from BYU fans. I'm not sure what you guys are seeing in the future that has you pushing independent football for many of your former MWC rivals, but it must be at least concerning for BYU. Are you happy with BYU independent football if this is as good as it gets? (No one else joins you) Army has a system where it works quite well. Obviously, BYU wants more than Army but Army doesn't worry about who's Indy and who else we want to be Indy for the benefit of Army. If you have a bad year, maybe the AAC passes on BYU. I'd take the invite while it's still open rather than trying to go the route you are going.

(07-09-2017 05:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats been the same since the rule was originally created. The rule specifically states that the conference can divide into TWO divisions for the purposes of a championship game. There is no allowance for more than two. The ACC wanted that restriction to be removed when the part requiring 12 teams to divide into divisions was removed. The proposed deregulation of the two division requirement failed. You'll need to find a link to a pdf of the NCAA D1 manual. Essentially, the most recent rule change eliminated the requirement for 12 teams to hold a CCG. It eliminated the requirement to split into divisions (provided you play a complete round robin of the entire conference) in order to hold a CCG. You can still divide into divisions---but the rule still specifically states that a conference can split into TWO divisions for the purposes of a championship game provided you play a full round robin in each division. No provision exists for splitting into more than 2 divisions.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

Football Bowl Subdivision conferences with fewer than 12 members will be able to hold a conference championship football game in addition to the allowed 12 regular-season games, the Division I Council decided Wednesday, and such conferences will have two ways to meet scheduling requirements.

Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game.

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

Again --- you need to read the full language of the rule you're quoting, and understand the context of the rule.

The point of such a rule is for a CCG that is exempt from the maximum number of games in a regular season, IE, allowing it to be a 13th game.


There is no rule against a conference simply branding one of its regular season conference games as a "Conference Championship Game". It would require flexible scheduling at the end of the season, but nothing prevents it.

(07-10-2017 09:02 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 07:04 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 12:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 12:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  But the "Premier League" schools would remain members of their respective leagues... who have CFP contracts.

But how do the winner of the Premier League claim the championship of its original league? Remember that the Access Bowl representative is not the "best Go5 school", but the "Go5 conference champion ranked most highly by the CFP playoff committee".

My take on the Premier League by Arkstfan is that it is for media money/exposure only. If one of those teams is champ of their conference, which they remain a part of, they are treated as champ of their conference for Access Bowl purposes.

Except the discussion is in terms of not "taking so many" that any existing Go5 conference falls below eight:

Quote: NCAA rules require an FBS league to have 8 full members playing football within the conference. The "Premier League" would be a football only "G6" league (or "P6" :) ) To form the league you rank everyone based on say the last three years of computer ratings. Ideally you want the 9 best or 12 best but you can't do that because it means a league would fall under the 8 member rule, so you cap how many can come from each league. MWC, AAC, and MAC could "contribute" up to four teams each, CUSA could "contribute" no more than 6 and Sun Belt no more than 2.

You can't both play a full conference schedule in your "home" conference and also play a full conference schedule in the "Premier League", since a conference schedule is over half a season. And if you don't have a conference champion of the "Premier League", then the whole point of picking a clear "best of the rest" champion with stronger market appeal falls over.

You could if you broke the Premier League into 2 4-team divisions. That would mean you would only be required to play 3 games (a divisional round robin) to create a CCG. The issue would be--how do you play in 2 CCG's the same weekend? Because---in order to qualify for the G5 slot, you'd also have to win your actual G5 conference. The only way I can figure it out is you could schedule the CCG for the Premier League prior to the end of the season as your 4th OOC game. The other 6 Premier League teams would simply play one another in crossover games (basically it would be dynamic scheduling thats decided during the season).

You play your 3 Premier League division games as your first 3 OOC games of the season and you reserve the next to the last week of the season as another OOC slot for a TBA game vs another Premier Team. It could be just an OOC game---or, it could be the Premier CCG. That would give the teams and its fans most of the season to arrange travel plans and logistics for that late season game. Then you play your regular conference schedule in the 8 games sandwiched in between. Essentially, the 4-game Premier schedule is your OOC.

It could be done--but it eats up the entire OOC schedule---and it still doesnt solve the problem of there being no defined access to the G5 access bowl. It also doesnt solve the issue of what happens to a teams normally scheduled OOC when they get promoted to the Premier League (which is the biggest problem with my solution).

(07-10-2017 09:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 05:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats been the same since the rule was originally created. The rule specifically states that the conference can divide into TWO divisions for the purposes of a championship game. There is no allowance for more than two. The ACC wanted that restriction to be removed when the part requiring 12 teams to divide into divisions was removed. The proposed deregulation of the two division requirement failed. You'll need to find a link to a pdf of the NCAA D1 manual. Essentially, the most recent rule change eliminated the requirement for 12 teams to hold a CCG. It eliminated the requirement to split into divisions (provided you play a complete round robin of the entire conference) in order to hold a CCG. You can still divide into divisions---but the rule still specifically states that a conference can split into TWO divisions for the purposes of a championship game provided you play a full round robin in each division. No provision exists for splitting into more than 2 divisions.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

Football Bowl Subdivision conferences with fewer than 12 members will be able to hold a conference championship football game in addition to the allowed 12 regular-season games, the Division I Council decided Wednesday, and such conferences will have two ways to meet scheduling requirements.

Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game.

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

Again --- you need to read the full language of the rule you're quoting, and understand the context of the rule.

The point of such a rule is for a CCG that is exempt from the maximum number of games in a regular season, IE, allowing it to be a 13th game.


There is no rule against a conference simply branding one of its regular season conference games as a "Conference Championship Game". It would require flexible scheduling at the end of the season, but nothing prevents it.

I see what you are saying. Then, yes----If you just want to use your 12th game as a CCG via the use of dynamic scheduling in the last game---you can do that. But you would face the same issue that the Big12 did---you'd only have 12 data points compared to 13 for most any other conference winner. That would likely play against the league champ in the CFP committee rankings.

(07-10-2017 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It could be done--but it eats up the entire OOC schedule---and it still doesnt solve the problem of there being no defined access to the G5 access bowl. It also doesnt solve the issue of what happens to a teams normally scheduled OOC when they get promoted to the Premier League (which is the biggest problem with my solution).

These would be valid concerns.

Although I would say that the entire point of being in such a "Premier" league is that you wouldn't want to play any lower teams. So non-conf games are somewhat moot, then, unless you were trying to play at P5 teams. But then the P5 might restrict scheduling against this Premier league as a purposeful way to undercut it.

(07-10-2017 10:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I see what you are saying. Then, yes----If you just want to use your 12th game as a CCG via the use of dynamic scheduling in the last game---you can do that. But you would face the same issue that the Big12 did---you'd only have 12 data points compared to 13 for most any other conference winner. That would likely play against the league champ in the CFP committee rankings.

Valid concern.

Oklahoma made it work last year though, with a de-facto CCG against OK St. They even delayed the end of their regular season by one week, to align this game with the rest of the P conf CCG's. But yes, valid concern.

(07-10-2017 08:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 12:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 07:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well there ARE things that COULD be done. They won't happen but they are FEASIBLE.

1. United television contract, everyone gets a base share and payments are based on the network and broadcast window.

2. G5 "Premier League". NCAA rules require an FBS league to have 8 full members playing football within the conference. The "Premier League" would be a football only "G6" league (or "P6" :) ) To form the league you rank everyone based on say the last three years of computer ratings. Ideally you want the 9 best or 12 best but you can't do that because it means a league would fall under the 8 member rule, so you cap how many can come from each league. MWC, AAC, and MAC could "contribute" up to four teams each, CUSA could "contribute" no more than 6 and Sun Belt no more than 2. So you take the list and you strike the teams rated 5-12 in AAC, MWC, MAC, 7-14 in CUSA, and 3-10 from Sun Belt and just take the 9 or 12 highest rated teams. Each league "contributing" a team gets one share of equity for each team "contributed". At the end of the season run the numbers again and redo it.

No realistic chance anyone does that, but any of it can happen under NCAA rules.

Except the "Premier League" wouldnt have a connection to the CFP or the access bowl...or NCAA autobids....so, thats not an option.

A Untied TV agreement is possible---but more likely it jsut equalizes income. Those at the bottom of the current G5 media earnings would do much better, those at the top probably see little change or a slight drop. The deal would have to be 130 million just for the AAC/MW schools to break even (assumning its divided evenly). The payment window system MIGHT help---but likely not for the bottom half of the AAC/MW schools. Additionally, rhe AAC/MW schools would lose alot of ability to negotiate their guaranteed exposure. Given the broadcast window system wouldnt guarantee income----I doubt university presidents with the most to lose would be inclined to take that risk. The AAC/MW schools are probably better off seeing what they can land on their own...at least for now.

I do think the idea might help the SB/CUSA to do better if the networks cant play one against the other. Those two together would control 37% of the G5 inventory and almost 20 of all FBS inventory.

But the "Premier League" schools would remain members of their respective leagues... who have CFP contracts.

You can't screw it up by arguing the premier league gets its own cut.

But remember, the money distribution for G5 was cooked up by the G5 leagues and the CFP just rubber stamped it. They even approved a change to it, switching from $1 million per school up to 12 to $1 million per school up to 10 throwing the rest into the performance pool.

As long as you aren't asking for a sixth vote in the CFP or in the NCAA or more money in the G5 pool, they are going to bless most anything. You can take the performance pool and if you want, you can just divide the performance pool based on how many schools you have in the premier league.

Arguably the P5 would rather meet the champion of a "showcase" league that has larger brand awareness.

Now if I'm Mike Aresco I don't want to see that happen. There is no real worry about Houston playing Boise and down the road saying hey I'd like to form a conference with Boise but if games against top Sun Belt and CUSA in the region prove popular, that could pose a real threat to the stability of the league.

I guess I'm not following how your proposal works. The Premier league teams can't be part of their old league. To be an FBS conference you'd need 8 teams playing all sports together. How are they going to play all sports in the Premier League and still be part of thier old league? Plus wouldnt they have to be champion of a CFP signatory league to qualify for the G5 access slot. The G5 could split the money as they wish--but who is eligible to play in the game is spelled out in the CFP documents.

It's sounds more like something the G5 could float during the next CFP deal if they chose to.

They remain in their conference. The CFP as we saw with Baylor/TCU defers to the conference to tell them who the champion is. If ECU is in the Premier League and wins it, AAC declares them champion.