(07-20-2017 02:43 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 02:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The AAC would be very stupid not to want what the AFA coach proposed last week, because his proposal was for a 4-team G5 playoff, the winner of which would be entered into an 8-team playoff with the P5.

And getting beat up in two hard fought games before we even made it to the playoff?

No team (even P5) would survive against a top 7 team with two weeks rest and you coming in on one leg.

Dumb idea!

Even if it were to pass no team would make it to the championship game. I could see the occasional upset into the second round but that's where the dream ends.

I agree it has no chance of passing, because the P5 doesn't want the G5 in a playoff.

But if it could, the AAC would be very dumb to oppose it, as it would give us an on-the-field path to the title.

(07-20-2017 10:44 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  5 of 7 Bowls against G5 and before Christmas. (went 1-4 against "inferior" conferences); 2 games after Christmas against 6-6 P5 schools (went 1-1, win was in OT). Their 2 ranked schools got beat pretty solid. This is not the resume of a superior than other G5 conferences.

Saturday, Dec. 17, 2016
Las Vegas Bowl
San Diego State (11-3) 34, Houston (9-4) 10
Sam Boyd Stadium , Las Vegas, NV 3:30pm ET / ABC

Saturday, Dec. 17, 2016
AutoNation Cure Bowl
Arkansas State (8-5) 31, UCF (6-7) 13
Camping World Stadium, Orlando, FL 5:30pm ET / CBSSN

Monday, Dec. 19, 2016
Miami Beach Bowl
Tulsa (10-3) 55, Central Michigan 10
Marlins Park, Miami, FL 2:30pm ET / ESPN

Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2016
Boca Raton Bowl
WKU (11-3) 51, Memphis (8-5) 31
FAU Stadium, Boca Raton, FL 7pm ET / ESPN

Friday, Dec. 23, 2016
Lockheed Martin Armed Forces Bowl
Louisiana Tech (9-5) 48, #25 Navy (9-5) 45
Amon G. Carter Stadium, Fort Worth, TX 4:30pm ET / ESPN

Tuesday, Dec. 27, 2016
Military Bowl
Wake Forest (7-6) 34, #24 Temple (10-4) 26
Navy-Marine Corps. Stadium, Annapolis, MD 3:30pm ET / ESPN

Thursday, Dec. 29, 2016
Birmingham Bowl
USF (11-2) 46, South Carolina (6-7) 39 (OT)
Legion Field, Birmingham, AL 2pm ET / ESPN

- Man, what happened to Houston? You could say the Navy loss was tough, but they bounced back. You could say the SMU loss was terrible, but they came back to beat Louisville. But then lost to Memphis, and finally didn't put up much of a fight in the bowl game, obviously missing their leader quite a bit and heart wasn't as much in it.
- Defacto home game for UCF
- You didn't mention, but Central Michigan was 6-6 in the regular season. So this was an "easy" win for Tulsa, which the score agrees with
- Seems Memphis was a microcosm of the AAC teams last year ... up and down, up and down
- Navy, another up and down team in the AAC ... has big wins, and then confusing losses
- Other than loss to Memphis, Temple was probably the most consistent AAC team ... and then loses Wake?? I guess probably losing head coach again was an issue
- Otherwise, you could argue that USF was the most consistent AAC team, the best victory of the bunch here

(07-20-2017 09:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 08:59 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 08:49 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  From a bowl game standpoint all the American is trying to do is leverage themselves into a spot against a decent power conference team in a region in which the American already a concentration of schools. I do believe Aresco will get it done as the American's top team can probably land a spot against a 7 or 8 win team power conference team.

Eventually the the playoff is going to go 8 team in which the power conferences an get automatic births and the top G5 to earns a spot with two other at-larges. It might not happen in the next five years but there is too much money on the table for the playoff not to expand. Play the round of 8 at the highest rated team and the G5 team never sniffs a major bowl game unless they upset the top seed.

The 13 game schedule with 10 conference games will eventually be the new normal. Once again the money will talk and the additional game will allow for the big money makers to play to 7 to 8 home games a year. The little guys will play 5 to 6 home games and take they extra road game for the buy money. Everyone in between will probably alternate between 6 to 7 home games year with neutral site game mixed in.

The American's next media deal will probably be in the 5 to 8 million range. Its the range needed to keep the former Big East school even when the realignment fund runs dry. Honestly if you look at the ratings for the American the conference probably should be able get the low end from ESPN or the high end by breaking the rights apart and selling it to multiple networks and streaming services.

The fallacy of the 8 team arguement is that it will guarantee autobids. The CFP will still take the top 8 teams not the conference champion. Thus you will see 8 p5 teams and likely odds the Conference champs will be included.

1 Alabama 13-0 Champ
2 Clemson 12-1 Champ
3 Ohio State 11-1 Non Champ
4 Washington 12-1 Champ
5 Penn State 11-2 Champ
6 Michigan 10-2 Non Champ
7 Oklahoma 10-2 Cham
8 Wisconsin 10-3 Non Champ


Money will go even more to the power conferences than it does now. G5 will get even further behind than ever with the demise of the bowl system.

Then that's the point that it probably become prudent to file an anti-trust suit. A dozen years with the top G5 winning the access bowl against a top 10 team an average of 2/3rds of the time--yet no G5 ever having been ranked in the top ten by a committee stacked to the gills with P5 reps. I think they'd probably have a pretty good case---expecially since they will file in a place where the judge is most likely to be sympathetic. That's probably after the P5 has been humbled by several other losses in court cases against players. At some point, throwing a bone (1 slot out of eight) to the G5 will be a the easiest move. A court is likely to structure the selection committee in a 1 conference 1 vote set up and require a more equitable cash split. Multiple G5's might start making the playoff With a 1 conference 1 vote selection committee. Giving the G5 one slot is cheap insurance. The G5 would never rock the boat if they are given reasonable access--too much to lose. One slot is reasonable.

AC, the CFP was designed to learn against the BCS trust issues. By not having conference champs but a committee picking the top 8 teams and no autobids, you avoid anti-trust issues. You just have to provide an access path, it does not have to be a guranteed path. Give the P5 credit, they learned well from the BCS mistakes. That basically was the reason for the creation of the G5, to give access to a bowl since the other 5 conferences had an access to a major bowl to avoid Anti-Trust. No one is assured a cfp top 4 spot, thus avoiding Anti-Trust issues. . Again, the OSU getting in over PSU only made the Anti-Trust arguement even more difficult since a non-champion got in over a conference champ. CFP used it's lawyers well to design a system to meet anti-trust laws while basically keeping it a trust.

(07-20-2017 10:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  For the Holiday/Sun/Liberty/Independence to work I think you'd have to make them the first pick after CFP.

Using 2016 results.

Holiday-PAC #2
#10 Colorado vs. San Diego St.

Sun-B12 #2
#12 Oklahoma State vs. #24 Temple

Independence-ACC #2
#13 Louisville vs. Western Kentucky

Liberty-B1G #2
Penn State vs. Arkansas St.

Good regional pairings for the G champs.

KH, I am just trying to understand your logic. Why would any of these bowls give up their P5 tie-ins for this. Why would Sun want Temple verse the PAC 12 verse the current ACC agreed team. Why would Liberty give up an SEC tie-in? Same goes for Holiday giving up a B10 tie-in? Indy I could see it gets the ACC 8th team and SEC 10th team. That might make since but in your secanrio, the ACC has a tie-in with BWW Orlando Bowl if B10 is an opponent, Louisville would not go to Indy instead of that BWW bowl. Why would any of these bowls prefer the G5 champ over what they have already?

Liberty Bowl was like C-USA champ Vs WAC champ. I remember a 1 lost Louisville team from C-USA beat an undefeated Boise State team from the WAC. That was the last year Petrino coached Louisville before the school joined the Big East.

(07-20-2017 08:59 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 08:49 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  From a bowl game standpoint all the American is trying to do is leverage themselves into a spot against a decent power conference team in a region in which the American already a concentration of schools. I do believe Aresco will get it done as the American's top team can probably land a spot against a 7 or 8 win team power conference team.

Eventually the the playoff is going to go 8 team in which the power conferences an get automatic births and the top G5 to earns a spot with two other at-larges. It might not happen in the next five years but there is too much money on the table for the playoff not to expand. Play the round of 8 at the highest rated team and the G5 team never sniffs a major bowl game unless they upset the top seed.

The 13 game schedule with 10 conference games will eventually be the new normal. Once again the money will talk and the additional game will allow for the big money makers to play to 7 to 8 home games a year. The little guys will play 5 to 6 home games and take they extra road game for the buy money. Everyone in between will probably alternate between 6 to 7 home games year with neutral site game mixed in.

The American's next media deal will probably be in the 5 to 8 million range. Its the range needed to keep the former Big East school even when the realignment fund runs dry. Honestly if you look at the ratings for the American the conference probably should be able get the low end from ESPN or the high end by breaking the rights apart and selling it to multiple networks and streaming services.

The fallacy of the 8 team arguement is that it will guarantee autobids. The CFP will still take the top 8 teams not the conference champion. Thus you will see 8 p5 teams and likely odds the Conference champs will be included.

1 Alabama 13-0 Champ
2 Clemson 12-1 Champ
3 Ohio State 11-1 Non Champ
4 Washington 12-1 Champ
5 Penn State 11-2 Champ
6 Michigan 10-2 Non Champ
7 Oklahoma 10-2 Cham
8 Wisconsin 10-3 Non Champ


Money will go even more to the power conferences than it does now. G5 will get even further behind than ever with the demise of the bowl system.

As much of a B1G homer as I am, I don't want 4 B1G teams in a playoff (or 4 SEC, etc).

(07-21-2017 10:19 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 09:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 08:59 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 08:49 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  From a bowl game standpoint all the American is trying to do is leverage themselves into a spot against a decent power conference team in a region in which the American already a concentration of schools. I do believe Aresco will get it done as the American's top team can probably land a spot against a 7 or 8 win team power conference team.

Eventually the the playoff is going to go 8 team in which the power conferences an get automatic births and the top G5 to earns a spot with two other at-larges. It might not happen in the next five years but there is too much money on the table for the playoff not to expand. Play the round of 8 at the highest rated team and the G5 team never sniffs a major bowl game unless they upset the top seed.

The 13 game schedule with 10 conference games will eventually be the new normal. Once again the money will talk and the additional game will allow for the big money makers to play to 7 to 8 home games a year. The little guys will play 5 to 6 home games and take they extra road game for the buy money. Everyone in between will probably alternate between 6 to 7 home games year with neutral site game mixed in.

The American's next media deal will probably be in the 5 to 8 million range. Its the range needed to keep the former Big East school even when the realignment fund runs dry. Honestly if you look at the ratings for the American the conference probably should be able get the low end from ESPN or the high end by breaking the rights apart and selling it to multiple networks and streaming services.

The fallacy of the 8 team arguement is that it will guarantee autobids. The CFP will still take the top 8 teams not the conference champion. Thus you will see 8 p5 teams and likely odds the Conference champs will be included.

1 Alabama 13-0 Champ
2 Clemson 12-1 Champ
3 Ohio State 11-1 Non Champ
4 Washington 12-1 Champ
5 Penn State 11-2 Champ
6 Michigan 10-2 Non Champ
7 Oklahoma 10-2 Cham
8 Wisconsin 10-3 Non Champ


Money will go even more to the power conferences than it does now. G5 will get even further behind than ever with the demise of the bowl system.

Then that's the point that it probably become prudent to file an anti-trust suit. A dozen years with the top G5 winning the access bowl against a top 10 team an average of 2/3rds of the time--yet no G5 ever having been ranked in the top ten by a committee stacked to the gills with P5 reps. I think they'd probably have a pretty good case---expecially since they will file in a place where the judge is most likely to be sympathetic. That's probably after the P5 has been humbled by several other losses in court cases against players. At some point, throwing a bone (1 slot out of eight) to the G5 will be a the easiest move. A court is likely to structure the selection committee in a 1 conference 1 vote set up and require a more equitable cash split. Multiple G5's might start making the playoff With a 1 conference 1 vote selection committee. Giving the G5 one slot is cheap insurance. The G5 would never rock the boat if they are given reasonable access--too much to lose. One slot is reasonable.

AC, the CFP was designed to learn against the BCS trust issues. By not having conference champs but a committee picking the top 8 teams and no autobids, you avoid anti-trust issues. You just have to provide an access path, it does not have to be a guranteed path. Give the P5 credit, they learned well from the BCS mistakes. That basically was the reason for the creation of the G5, to give access to a bowl since the other 5 conferences had an access to a major bowl to avoid Anti-Trust. No one is assured a cfp top 4 spot, thus avoiding Anti-Trust issues. . Again, the OSU getting in over PSU only made the Anti-Trust arguement even more difficult since a non-champion got in over a conference champ. CFP used it's lawyers well to design a system to meet anti-trust laws while basically keeping it a trust.

No. It wss designed to APPEAR to give everyone a fair shot. A blind man could see the composition of the Selection Commiittee is the key to fairness and it's stacked structure has an obvious bias. Twelve years of G5's never making the top 10 wound be solid proof of the effective exclusion (and we appear to be well on our way to that result with 25% of the agreement already complete). If the courts imposed a one conference one vote committee structure--I'd be just fine with the existing system. I'm wondering why would the P5 oppose the move? Opposing the move essentially is an admission that the stacked structure of the committee serves a more sinister purpose.

(07-21-2017 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 10:19 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 09:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 08:59 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 08:49 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  From a bowl game standpoint all the American is trying to do is leverage themselves into a spot against a decent power conference team in a region in which the American already a concentration of schools. I do believe Aresco will get it done as the American's top team can probably land a spot against a 7 or 8 win team power conference team.

Eventually the the playoff is going to go 8 team in which the power conferences an get automatic births and the top G5 to earns a spot with two other at-larges. It might not happen in the next five years but there is too much money on the table for the playoff not to expand. Play the round of 8 at the highest rated team and the G5 team never sniffs a major bowl game unless they upset the top seed.

The 13 game schedule with 10 conference games will eventually be the new normal. Once again the money will talk and the additional game will allow for the big money makers to play to 7 to 8 home games a year. The little guys will play 5 to 6 home games and take they extra road game for the buy money. Everyone in between will probably alternate between 6 to 7 home games year with neutral site game mixed in.

The American's next media deal will probably be in the 5 to 8 million range. Its the range needed to keep the former Big East school even when the realignment fund runs dry. Honestly if you look at the ratings for the American the conference probably should be able get the low end from ESPN or the high end by breaking the rights apart and selling it to multiple networks and streaming services.

The fallacy of the 8 team arguement is that it will guarantee autobids. The CFP will still take the top 8 teams not the conference champion. Thus you will see 8 p5 teams and likely odds the Conference champs will be included.

1 Alabama 13-0 Champ
2 Clemson 12-1 Champ
3 Ohio State 11-1 Non Champ
4 Washington 12-1 Champ
5 Penn State 11-2 Champ
6 Michigan 10-2 Non Champ
7 Oklahoma 10-2 Cham
8 Wisconsin 10-3 Non Champ


Money will go even more to the power conferences than it does now. G5 will get even further behind than ever with the demise of the bowl system.

Then that's the point that it probably become prudent to file an anti-trust suit. A dozen years with the top G5 winning the access bowl against a top 10 team an average of 2/3rds of the time--yet no G5 ever having been ranked in the top ten by a committee stacked to the gills with P5 reps. I think they'd probably have a pretty good case---expecially since they will file in a place where the judge is most likely to be sympathetic. That's probably after the P5 has been humbled by several other losses in court cases against players. At some point, throwing a bone (1 slot out of eight) to the G5 will be a the easiest move. A court is likely to structure the selection committee in a 1 conference 1 vote set up and require a more equitable cash split. Multiple G5's might start making the playoff With a 1 conference 1 vote selection committee. Giving the G5 one slot is cheap insurance. The G5 would never rock the boat if they are given reasonable access--too much to lose. One slot is reasonable.

AC, the CFP was designed to learn against the BCS trust issues. By not having conference champs but a committee picking the top 8 teams and no autobids, you avoid anti-trust issues. You just have to provide an access path, it does not have to be a guranteed path. Give the P5 credit, they learned well from the BCS mistakes. That basically was the reason for the creation of the G5, to give access to a bowl since the other 5 conferences had an access to a major bowl to avoid Anti-Trust. No one is assured a cfp top 4 spot, thus avoiding Anti-Trust issues. . Again, the OSU getting in over PSU only made the Anti-Trust arguement even more difficult since a non-champion got in over a conference champ. CFP used it's lawyers well to design a system to meet anti-trust laws while basically keeping it a trust.

No. It wss designed to APPEAR to give everyone a fair shot. A blind man could see the composition of the Selection Commiittee is the key to fairness and it's stacked structure has an obvious bias. Twelve years of G5's never making the top 10 wound be solid proof of the effective exclusion (and we appear to be well on our way to that result with 25% of the agreement already complete). If the courts imposed a one conference one vote committee structure--I'd be just fine with the existing system. I'm wondering why would the P5 oppose the move? Opposing the move essentially is an admission that the stacked structure of the committee serves a more sinister purpose.

Problem with this is, if we got rid of the CFP committee and let the AP poll produce the top 4 teams, no G5 would have made it either. Or if we let computers like Sagarin or the Massey Composite do it.

Bottom line is, the CFP might be biased, but every unbiased method we can think of would end up with the same meta-result, no G5 teams in. That probably says something about whether they deserve it, eh?

(07-21-2017 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 10:19 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 09:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 08:59 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 08:49 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  From a bowl game standpoint all the American is trying to do is leverage themselves into a spot against a decent power conference team in a region in which the American already a concentration of schools. I do believe Aresco will get it done as the American's top team can probably land a spot against a 7 or 8 win team power conference team.

Eventually the the playoff is going to go 8 team in which the power conferences an get automatic births and the top G5 to earns a spot with two other at-larges. It might not happen in the next five years but there is too much money on the table for the playoff not to expand. Play the round of 8 at the highest rated team and the G5 team never sniffs a major bowl game unless they upset the top seed.

The 13 game schedule with 10 conference games will eventually be the new normal. Once again the money will talk and the additional game will allow for the big money makers to play to 7 to 8 home games a year. The little guys will play 5 to 6 home games and take they extra road game for the buy money. Everyone in between will probably alternate between 6 to 7 home games year with neutral site game mixed in.

The American's next media deal will probably be in the 5 to 8 million range. Its the range needed to keep the former Big East school even when the realignment fund runs dry. Honestly if you look at the ratings for the American the conference probably should be able get the low end from ESPN or the high end by breaking the rights apart and selling it to multiple networks and streaming services.

The fallacy of the 8 team arguement is that it will guarantee autobids. The CFP will still take the top 8 teams not the conference champion. Thus you will see 8 p5 teams and likely odds the Conference champs will be included.

1 Alabama 13-0 Champ
2 Clemson 12-1 Champ
3 Ohio State 11-1 Non Champ
4 Washington 12-1 Champ
5 Penn State 11-2 Champ
6 Michigan 10-2 Non Champ
7 Oklahoma 10-2 Cham
8 Wisconsin 10-3 Non Champ


Money will go even more to the power conferences than it does now. G5 will get even further behind than ever with the demise of the bowl system.

Then that's the point that it probably become prudent to file an anti-trust suit. A dozen years with the top G5 winning the access bowl against a top 10 team an average of 2/3rds of the time--yet no G5 ever having been ranked in the top ten by a committee stacked to the gills with P5 reps. I think they'd probably have a pretty good case---expecially since they will file in a place where the judge is most likely to be sympathetic. That's probably after the P5 has been humbled by several other losses in court cases against players. At some point, throwing a bone (1 slot out of eight) to the G5 will be a the easiest move. A court is likely to structure the selection committee in a 1 conference 1 vote set up and require a more equitable cash split. Multiple G5's might start making the playoff With a 1 conference 1 vote selection committee. Giving the G5 one slot is cheap insurance. The G5 would never rock the boat if they are given reasonable access--too much to lose. One slot is reasonable.

AC, the CFP was designed to learn against the BCS trust issues. By not having conference champs but a committee picking the top 8 teams and no autobids, you avoid anti-trust issues. You just have to provide an access path, it does not have to be a guranteed path. Give the P5 credit, they learned well from the BCS mistakes. That basically was the reason for the creation of the G5, to give access to a bowl since the other 5 conferences had an access to a major bowl to avoid Anti-Trust. No one is assured a cfp top 4 spot, thus avoiding Anti-Trust issues. . Again, the OSU getting in over PSU only made the Anti-Trust arguement even more difficult since a non-champion got in over a conference champ. CFP used it's lawyers well to design a system to meet anti-trust laws while basically keeping it a trust.

No. It wss designed to APPEAR to give everyone a fair shot. A blind man could see the composition of the Selection Commiittee is the key to fairness and it's stacked structure has an obvious bias. Twelve years of G5's never making the top 10 wound be solid proof of the effective exclusion (and we appear to be well on our way to that result with 25% of the agreement already complete). If the courts imposed a one conference one vote committee structure--I'd be just fine with the existing system. I'm wondering why would the P5 oppose the move? Opposing the move essentially is an admission that the stacked structure of the committee serves a more sinister purpose.

AC, I said it was designed to keep as close to a trust while staying within the laws of Anti-Trust. You need to think of this as what a NCAA Compliance Director does at a college. He does not tell them what they can't do but how far they can go before it breaks the rule. As long as the stay within compliance of the law, you can't bust them. Also, it is hard to be sue for anti-trust when all 10 conferences agred to the CFP deal. Remember it has always been the NCAA violating Anti-Trust laws, CFP is not run by the NCAA, it was created thanks in base to the 1984 SC ruling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...f_Oklahoma

(07-21-2017 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 10:19 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 09:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 08:59 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  The fallacy of the 8 team arguement is that it will guarantee autobids. The CFP will still take the top 8 teams not the conference champion. Thus you will see 8 p5 teams and likely odds the Conference champs will be included.

1 Alabama 13-0 Champ
2 Clemson 12-1 Champ
3 Ohio State 11-1 Non Champ
4 Washington 12-1 Champ
5 Penn State 11-2 Champ
6 Michigan 10-2 Non Champ
7 Oklahoma 10-2 Cham
8 Wisconsin 10-3 Non Champ


Money will go even more to the power conferences than it does now. G5 will get even further behind than ever with the demise of the bowl system.

Then that's the point that it probably become prudent to file an anti-trust suit. A dozen years with the top G5 winning the access bowl against a top 10 team an average of 2/3rds of the time--yet no G5 ever having been ranked in the top ten by a committee stacked to the gills with P5 reps. I think they'd probably have a pretty good case---expecially since they will file in a place where the judge is most likely to be sympathetic. That's probably after the P5 has been humbled by several other losses in court cases against players. At some point, throwing a bone (1 slot out of eight) to the G5 will be a the easiest move. A court is likely to structure the selection committee in a 1 conference 1 vote set up and require a more equitable cash split. Multiple G5's might start making the playoff With a 1 conference 1 vote selection committee. Giving the G5 one slot is cheap insurance. The G5 would never rock the boat if they are given reasonable access--too much to lose. One slot is reasonable.

AC, the CFP was designed to learn against the BCS trust issues. By not having conference champs but a committee picking the top 8 teams and no autobids, you avoid anti-trust issues. You just have to provide an access path, it does not have to be a guranteed path. Give the P5 credit, they learned well from the BCS mistakes. That basically was the reason for the creation of the G5, to give access to a bowl since the other 5 conferences had an access to a major bowl to avoid Anti-Trust. No one is assured a cfp top 4 spot, thus avoiding Anti-Trust issues. . Again, the OSU getting in over PSU only made the Anti-Trust arguement even more difficult since a non-champion got in over a conference champ. CFP used it's lawyers well to design a system to meet anti-trust laws while basically keeping it a trust.

No. It wss designed to APPEAR to give everyone a fair shot. A blind man could see the composition of the Selection Commiittee is the key to fairness and it's stacked structure has an obvious bias. Twelve years of G5's never making the top 10 wound be solid proof of the effective exclusion (and we appear to be well on our way to that result with 25% of the agreement already complete). If the courts imposed a one conference one vote committee structure--I'd be just fine with the existing system. I'm wondering why would the P5 oppose the move? Opposing the move essentially is an admission that the stacked structure of the committee serves a more sinister purpose.

Problem with this is, if we got rid of the CFP committee and let the AP poll produce the top 4 teams, no G5 would have made it either. Or if we let computers like Sagarin or the Massey Composite do it.

Bottom line is, the CFP might be biased, but every unbiased method we can think of would end up with the same meta-result, no G5 teams in. That probably says something about whether they deserve it, eh?

That's not true. Houston finished #8 in the human polls in 2015-16 season. Houston appeared in the top ten just last year in both the AP and coaches polls. The classic human polls HAVE ranked G5 teams in the top 10---there is no question that deserving teams will get in. The CFP poll has never had a G5 in the top 10 in ANY week of its history. Not one. Worse yet---since the CFP poll is the only poll that matters---it's influence tends to skew the results to its point of view (a result I predicted back when it was proposed).

(07-21-2017 02:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 10:19 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 09:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Then that's the point that it probably become prudent to file an anti-trust suit. A dozen years with the top G5 winning the access bowl against a top 10 team an average of 2/3rds of the time--yet no G5 ever having been ranked in the top ten by a committee stacked to the gills with P5 reps. I think they'd probably have a pretty good case---expecially since they will file in a place where the judge is most likely to be sympathetic. That's probably after the P5 has been humbled by several other losses in court cases against players. At some point, throwing a bone (1 slot out of eight) to the G5 will be a the easiest move. A court is likely to structure the selection committee in a 1 conference 1 vote set up and require a more equitable cash split. Multiple G5's might start making the playoff With a 1 conference 1 vote selection committee. Giving the G5 one slot is cheap insurance. The G5 would never rock the boat if they are given reasonable access--too much to lose. One slot is reasonable.

AC, the CFP was designed to learn against the BCS trust issues. By not having conference champs but a committee picking the top 8 teams and no autobids, you avoid anti-trust issues. You just have to provide an access path, it does not have to be a guranteed path. Give the P5 credit, they learned well from the BCS mistakes. That basically was the reason for the creation of the G5, to give access to a bowl since the other 5 conferences had an access to a major bowl to avoid Anti-Trust. No one is assured a cfp top 4 spot, thus avoiding Anti-Trust issues. . Again, the OSU getting in over PSU only made the Anti-Trust arguement even more difficult since a non-champion got in over a conference champ. CFP used it's lawyers well to design a system to meet anti-trust laws while basically keeping it a trust.

No. It wss designed to APPEAR to give everyone a fair shot. A blind man could see the composition of the Selection Commiittee is the key to fairness and it's stacked structure has an obvious bias. Twelve years of G5's never making the top 10 wound be solid proof of the effective exclusion (and we appear to be well on our way to that result with 25% of the agreement already complete). If the courts imposed a one conference one vote committee structure--I'd be just fine with the existing system. I'm wondering why would the P5 oppose the move? Opposing the move essentially is an admission that the stacked structure of the committee serves a more sinister purpose.

Problem with this is, if we got rid of the CFP committee and let the AP poll produce the top 4 teams, no G5 would have made it either. Or if we let computers like Sagarin or the Massey Composite do it.

Bottom line is, the CFP might be biased, but every unbiased method we can think of would end up with the same meta-result, no G5 teams in. That probably says something about whether they deserve it, eh?

That's not true. Houston finished #8 in the human polls in 2015-16 season. Houston appeared in the top ten just last year in both the AP and coaches polls. The classic human polls HAVE ranked G5 teams in the top 10---there is no question that deserving teams will get in. The CFP poll has never had a G5 in the top 10 in ANY week of its history. Not one. Worse yet---since the CFP poll is the only poll that matters---it's influence tends to skew the results to its point of view (a result I predicted back when it was proposed).

Houston was ranked #14 at the end of the 2015 regular season, the only fair comparison with the CFP because the CFP doesn't rank post-bowls.

Also, it doesn't mean much if the AP once had Houston or some other G5 ranked in the top 10 in week 6, when again the CFP isn't ranking then either.

FWIW, here's how 2015 Houston was ranked with the AP compared to the CFP for the weeks when the CFP was ranking teams, starting with week 10:

10: AP 18 .... CFP 25
11: AP 16 .... CFP 24
12: AP 13 .... CFP 19
13: AP 21 .... CFP NR
14: AP 17 .... CFP 19
15: AP 14 .... CFP 18

Does the AP consistently rank Houston higher than the CFP, and by a pretty good margin? Yes. But, is it by a margin anywhere near enough to make a difference in terms of Houston making the playoffs? Not even close.

(07-21-2017 02:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 10:19 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  AC, the CFP was designed to learn against the BCS trust issues. By not having conference champs but a committee picking the top 8 teams and no autobids, you avoid anti-trust issues. You just have to provide an access path, it does not have to be a guranteed path. Give the P5 credit, they learned well from the BCS mistakes. That basically was the reason for the creation of the G5, to give access to a bowl since the other 5 conferences had an access to a major bowl to avoid Anti-Trust. No one is assured a cfp top 4 spot, thus avoiding Anti-Trust issues. . Again, the OSU getting in over PSU only made the Anti-Trust arguement even more difficult since a non-champion got in over a conference champ. CFP used it's lawyers well to design a system to meet anti-trust laws while basically keeping it a trust.

No. It wss designed to APPEAR to give everyone a fair shot. A blind man could see the composition of the Selection Commiittee is the key to fairness and it's stacked structure has an obvious bias. Twelve years of G5's never making the top 10 wound be solid proof of the effective exclusion (and we appear to be well on our way to that result with 25% of the agreement already complete). If the courts imposed a one conference one vote committee structure--I'd be just fine with the existing system. I'm wondering why would the P5 oppose the move? Opposing the move essentially is an admission that the stacked structure of the committee serves a more sinister purpose.

Problem with this is, if we got rid of the CFP committee and let the AP poll produce the top 4 teams, no G5 would have made it either. Or if we let computers like Sagarin or the Massey Composite do it.

Bottom line is, the CFP might be biased, but every unbiased method we can think of would end up with the same meta-result, no G5 teams in. That probably says something about whether they deserve it, eh?

That's not true. Houston finished #8 in the human polls in 2015-16 season. Houston appeared in the top ten just last year in both the AP and coaches polls. The classic human polls HAVE ranked G5 teams in the top 10---there is no question that deserving teams will get in. The CFP poll has never had a G5 in the top 10 in ANY week of its history. Not one. Worse yet---since the CFP poll is the only poll that matters---it's influence tends to skew the results to its point of view (a result I predicted back when it was proposed).

Houston was ranked #14 at the end of the 2015 regular season, the only fair comparison with the CFP because the CFP doesn't rank post-bowls.

Doesn't matter. The other polls have proven they will rank a G5 in the top 10 where as the CFP has proven to under rank G5's. When an undefeated team with 2 P5 wins is ranked behind 4 loss P5's there is a clear bias. There is no argument that can overcome that kind of clear bias. If your argument has s sound then a one conference one vote CFP selection committee shouldn't matter. If a G5 isn't in th top 10 in a one conference one vote selection committee---bias wouldn't be a factor.

(07-21-2017 02:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 02:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 10:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No. It wss designed to APPEAR to give everyone a fair shot. A blind man could see the composition of the Selection Commiittee is the key to fairness and it's stacked structure has an obvious bias. Twelve years of G5's never making the top 10 wound be solid proof of the effective exclusion (and we appear to be well on our way to that result with 25% of the agreement already complete). If the courts imposed a one conference one vote committee structure--I'd be just fine with the existing system. I'm wondering why would the P5 oppose the move? Opposing the move essentially is an admission that the stacked structure of the committee serves a more sinister purpose.

Problem with this is, if we got rid of the CFP committee and let the AP poll produce the top 4 teams, no G5 would have made it either. Or if we let computers like Sagarin or the Massey Composite do it.

Bottom line is, the CFP might be biased, but every unbiased method we can think of would end up with the same meta-result, no G5 teams in. That probably says something about whether they deserve it, eh?

That's not true. Houston finished #8 in the human polls in 2015-16 season. Houston appeared in the top ten just last year in both the AP and coaches polls. The classic human polls HAVE ranked G5 teams in the top 10---there is no question that deserving teams will get in. The CFP poll has never had a G5 in the top 10 in ANY week of its history. Not one. Worse yet---since the CFP poll is the only poll that matters---it's influence tends to skew the results to its point of view (a result I predicted back when it was proposed).

Houston was ranked #14 at the end of the 2015 regular season, the only fair comparison with the CFP because the CFP doesn't rank post-bowls.

Doesn't matter. The other polls have proven they will rank a G5 in the top 10 where as the CFP has proven to under rank G5's. When an undefeated team with 2 P5 wins is ranked behind 4 loss P5's there is a clear bias. There is no argument that can overcome that kind of clear bias. If your argument has s sound then a one conference one vote CFP selection committee shouldn't matter.

But the issue is, is the bias enough to matter? It doesn't mean much if the AP once had Houston or some other G5 ranked in the top 10 in week 6, when again the CFP isn't ranking then either. You have to look at weeks when both were ranking to have an apples/apples comparison.

FWIW, here's how 2015 Houston was ranked in the AP compared to the CFP for the weeks when the CFP was ranking teams, starting with week 10:

10: AP 18 .... CFP 25
11: AP 16 .... CFP 24
12: AP 13 .... CFP 19
13: AP 21 .... CFP NR
14: AP 17 .... CFP 19
15: AP 14 .... CFP 18

Does the AP consistently rank Houston higher than the CFP, and by a pretty good margin? Yes. But, is it by a margin anywhere near enough to make a difference in terms of Houston making the playoffs? Not even close.

When Houston was 10-0 and had beaten two P5 teams, their AP ranking was #13. If post-season decisions were made right then and using the AP ranking, it would have gotten them exactly what the CFP gave them, a trip to the Peach Bowl.

Um, when Houston was 5-0 in 2016, we were ranked 6th. Hello.

Could the people behind the city of Memphis and the Liberty Bowl do something to forced the Playoff idea since many of the P5 bowls are in towns that belong to G5 schools. Take away those bowls and give it to the G5 schools? The P5 schools would lose bowl slots. That could wake up the P5 to make a change to include the top respectable G5 schools that have a good history in bowl games like Boise State could get into the playoffs. One year, if they go by the polls? Boise State was in the top 4 in the rankings. But, the BCS at the time had Oklahoma State in the top 4, but they should have faced LSU in the bowl game instead of the rematch of LSU against Alabama. That year was a big fat joke.

(07-21-2017 04:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Could the people behind the city of Memphis and the Liberty Bowl do something to forced the Playoff idea since many of the P5 bowls are in towns that belong to G5 schools. Take away those bowls and give it to the G5 schools? The P5 schools would lose bowl slots. That could wake up the P5 to make a change to include the top respectable G5 schools that have a good history in bowl games like Boise State could get into the playoffs. One year, if they go by the polls? Boise State was in the top 4 in the rankings. But, the BCS at the time had Oklahoma State in the top 4, but they should have faced LSU in the bowl game instead of the rematch of LSU against Alabama. That year was a big fat joke.

(07-21-2017 04:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Could the people behind the city of Memphis and the Liberty Bowl do something to forced the Playoff idea since many of the P5 bowls are in towns that belong to G5 schools. Take away those bowls and give it to the G5 schools? The P5 schools would lose bowl slots. That could wake up the P5 to make a change to include the top respectable G5 schools that have a good history in bowl games like Boise State could get into the playoffs.

LOL wut?

let's slow down a little bit, 1st step would be to improve our bowl games with P-5
and pick up games vs G-5 in marque spots.
right now, AAC has bowl games vs SEC in Bir, City is trying to build conventation center
that would host game. this is a game AAC has to keep
AAC has 2 games vs ACC, Milatary & St Pete. Knocking down ACC bowls a notch.
will allow 7 wins schools to drop in game. IN St P case would become full time.
AAC has to knock ACC from Detriot, ACC or B-10 don't want to play there
actually would prefer MAC champ, B-10 ruined this game
Hawaii vs MWC is in rotation this yr. this game AAC wants to keep
LV loves BYU, vs AAC is perfect
Dallas classic vs B-12 is upgrade for game & conf
NO bowl does great job, vs SB champ, AAC will take it

(07-21-2017 04:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Could the people behind the city of Memphis and the Liberty Bowl do something to forced the Playoff idea

No. The Liberty Bowl committee will continue to do EXACTLY what the SEC office tells them to do. With the (partial) exception of the most major of major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange), the matchup/ conference tie in makes the bowl rather than vice-versa. (EDIT) If for some reason the Liberty Bowl tried to grow a spine against the SEC (and Big 12), the SEC-Big 12 matchup would move to the dome in St Louis, or to Arrowhead Field, or to Shreveport or Birmingham or wherever. And the Liberty Bowl would drop in importance to the level of the Heart of Dallas Bowl or the Birmingham Bowl or the New Orleans Bowl.

Quote:since many of the P5 bowls are in towns that belong to G5 schools. Take away those bowls and give it to the G5 schools?

Those bowls would lose money, in both attendance and TV revenue, if they were forced to swap out a 6-6 Arkansas or Kansas State or Indiana or Pitt--all of which, bottom tier P5s though they may be) average 40,000+ per game--for a 10-3 Cincinatti or Houston or Colorado State or Boise State (none of which average 40,000 per game). Look up FBS attendance numbers. (Cmon DavidSt, you LIKE looking things up).

So if local politicians forced their bowl to give up a P5 tie in favor of a G5 tie, the bowl has less money. So the bowl slides down the totem pole.

Quote:The P5 schools would lose bowl slots. That could wake up the P5 to make a change to include the top respectable G5 schools that have a good history in bowl games like Boise State could get into the playoffs. One year, if they go by the polls? Boise State was in the top 4 in the rankings. But, the BCS at the time had Oklahoma State in the top 4, but they should have faced LSU in the bowl game instead of the rematch of LSU against Alabama. That year was a big fat joke.

Well, I think that if (when) they do go to 8, the automatic bids of the P5 conferences will be protected--it's one thing for your conference champ to miss a 4 team playoff, because somebody has to. No one in the P5 is going to accept their champ missing an 8 team playoff.

And if you have 5 automatic bids, they'll throw the G5 a bone rather than have the fight and preserve the Access Bowl bid. And the top G5 team will face the No. 1 seed in the quarterfinals every year.

(07-21-2017 04:13 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Um, when Houston was 5-0 in 2016, we were ranked 6th. Hello.

So what?