(08-02-2017 10:49 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Not a fan of what I'm reading. If the committee thinks the conference is too weak than don't rank it's champion so high

I doubt the committee has the same agenda as conference fan boys on these threads do.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(08-02-2017 01:32 AM)DocAllentown Wrote:  Temple should have gotten that slot last year, considering their own resume as well as the resumes within the conference.

No. That's a Cinderella berth, and Western Michigan was the Cinderella.

(08-02-2017 10:15 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We need the Doosh Bowl on New Years Day. The two conferences with the most self-absorbed preening fanbases get the bids.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Well, the AAC would certainly be the dominant banter force there and they would be there annually. I bet the OP writer is an AAC fan, that plan fits their myopic egos well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(08-02-2017 12:21 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 10:15 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We need the Doosh Bowl on New Years Day. The two conferences with the most self-absorbed preening fanbases get the bids.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Well, the AAC would certainly be the dominant banter force there and they would be there annually. I bet the OP writer is an AAC fan, that plan fits their myopic egos well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote: Former Temple Coach Rhule
Tweet: U of Houston beat writer for Houston Chronicle
Post: UConn fan

(08-02-2017 12:31 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 12:21 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 10:15 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We need the Doosh Bowl on New Years Day. The two conferences with the most self-absorbed preening fanbases get the bids.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Well, the AAC would certainly be the dominant banter force there and they would be there annually. I bet the OP writer is an AAC fan, that plan fits their myopic egos well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote: Former Temple Coach Rhule
Tweet: U of Houston beat writer for Houston Chronicle
Post: UConn fan

What? So you don't "agree with Baylor Coach Matt Rhule"?

The American Athletic finds another voice to spread love to their G5 compatriots.

They are putting a big bulls eye on the backs of every program facing out of conference opponents. Some nice locker room fodder.

(08-02-2017 10:49 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Not a fan of what I'm reading. If the committee thinks the conference is too weak than don't rank it's champion so high

Look no further than Week 14 of the CFP poll in 2014
Boise State 9-2 was the G5 leader at #23 while Marshall at 11-0 was rated 24th.

(08-02-2017 06:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 10:49 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Not a fan of what I'm reading. If the committee thinks the conference is too weak than don't rank it's champion so high

Look no further than Week 14 of the CFP poll in 2014
Boise State 9-2 was the G5 leader at #23 while Marshall at 11-0 was rated 24th.

And the Marshall ranking was a gift....

Sent from my Z988 using CSNbbs mobile app

A 1,000 - 0 record does not make you a top 4 team in the country. You still have to beat someone.

To the naked eye most everyone can agree which teams are very good and which are not so much - ranking that group in order is the problem.

The only way to settle this is through a playoff, yes, a 5-team playoff bracket to declare conference superiority to bring balance to the college football universe. Have Goodyear or Gillette sponsor the thing, and it can be referred to as the G-5 Playoff.

(08-03-2017 07:51 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The only way to settle this is through a playoff, yes, a 5-team playoff bracket to declare conference superiority to bring balance to the college football universe. Have Goodyear or Gillette sponsor the thing, and it can be referred to as the G-5 Playoff.

A G5 playoff that feeds in to a FBS playoff with P5 is a good idea. By itself it is nothing.

(08-03-2017 07:51 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  The only way to settle this is through a playoff, yes, a 5-team playoff bracket to declare conference superiority to bring balance to the college football universe. Have Goodyear or Gillette sponsor the thing, and it can be referred to as the G-5 Playoff.

No thank you. If there was 160 million dollars in it like the NIU AD claimed, those post season matchups would already exist as high payout bowls. That said, I actually think those G5 champ vs G5 champ bowl games would draw quite well on tv. The LV Bowl last year with 2 G5's---MW champ SDsU and Houston (who wasn't even a conference champ) drew very good ratings. At some point some network is going to recognize that value and ante up enough money to make a pair of G5 champ vs G5 champ bowls (for the G5 champs not heading for the access bowl) financially attractive.

(08-03-2017 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A G5 playoff that feeds in to a FBS playoff with P5 is a good idea. By itself it is nothing.

This is not the answer! The fatal flaw in this is that the "Best G5" could have a bad night and get knocked out before they even get in. I call it a fatal flaw because I am firmly against auto bids for anyone. Even though there is way too much room for debate and openings for collusion and/or other politics, I still say the the best 8 teams should be in regardless of a conference championship or not.

Having a 4 team playoff all but guarantees G5 exclusion 9 out of 10 years. An 8 team playoff would give the G5 a decent opportunity to earn a spot or two every year however. Like I said - a team like Marshall could go 1,000-0 but beat Umass for all 1,000 wins - that does not mean they are one of the best 8 teams in the country.

You just cannot give everyone a chance like the basketball tournament does. In fact the death blow to the G5 and an 8 team playoff is already happening now with all of this CTE talk. Adding even more games is not going to happen - it may even go in the other direction once the dust settles on this.

CTE is like smoking - common sense tells EVERYONE it is bad but nobody wants to admit it because there is sooooooooo much money to be made (and lost).

(08-03-2017 09:27 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A G5 playoff that feeds in to a FBS playoff with P5 is a good idea. By itself it is nothing.

This is not the answer! The fatal flaw in this is that the "Best G5" could have a bad night and get knocked out before they even get in. I call it a fatal flaw because I am firmly against auto bids for anyone. Even though there is way too much room for debate and openings for collusion and/or other politics, I still say the the best 8 teams should be in regardless of a conference championship or not.

Having a 4 team playoff all but guarantees G5 exclusion 9 out of 10 years. An 8 team playoff would give the G5 a decent opportunity to earn a spot or two every year however. Like I said - a team like Marshall could go 1,000-0 but beat Umass for all 1,000 wins - that does not mean they are one of the best 8 teams in the country.

You just cannot give everyone a chance like the basketball tournament does. In fact the death blow to the G5 and an 8 team playoff is already happening now with all of this CTE talk. Adding even more games is not going to happen - it may even go in the other direction once the dust settles on this.

CTE is like smoking - common sense tells EVERYONE it is bad but nobody wants to admit it because there is sooooooooo much money to be made (and lost).

Your basic problem is that you have a monopoly that suppresses parity in the sport.

You then use that lack of parity as an excuse for why the monopoly should be maintained.

You aren't employable because you don't have a job type thinking.

If this is a real sport, then conference champions...in real sports...go to playoffs. Conference strength is taken into account in SEEDING...not access.

The very act of all conference champions having access will immediately increase parity in recruiting, media interest, and fan interest in all non-P5 programs which ultimately leads to more financial parity.

If this is a real sport. Which its not. Never mind.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(08-02-2017 06:26 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 06:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Look no further than Week 14 of the CFP poll in 2014
Boise State 9-2 was the G5 leader at #23 while Marshall at 11-0 was rated 24th.

And the Marshall ranking was a gift....

Well, Marshall did spank the MAC champion by 5 scores in the bowl game, but it was only the MAC champion...

(08-03-2017 09:37 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:27 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A G5 playoff that feeds in to a FBS playoff with P5 is a good idea. By itself it is nothing.

This is not the answer! The fatal flaw in this is that the "Best G5" could have a bad night and get knocked out before they even get in. I call it a fatal flaw because I am firmly against auto bids for anyone. Even though there is way too much room for debate and openings for collusion and/or other politics, I still say the the best 8 teams should be in regardless of a conference championship or not.

Having a 4 team playoff all but guarantees G5 exclusion 9 out of 10 years. An 8 team playoff would give the G5 a decent opportunity to earn a spot or two every year however. Like I said - a team like Marshall could go 1,000-0 but beat Umass for all 1,000 wins - that does not mean they are one of the best 8 teams in the country.

You just cannot give everyone a chance like the basketball tournament does. In fact the death blow to the G5 and an 8 team playoff is already happening now with all of this CTE talk. Adding even more games is not going to happen - it may even go in the other direction once the dust settles on this.

CTE is like smoking - common sense tells EVERYONE it is bad but nobody wants to admit it because there is sooooooooo much money to be made (and lost).

Your basic problem is that you have a monopoly that suppresses parity in the sport.

You then use that lack of parity as an excuse for why the monopoly should be maintained.

You aren't employable because you don't have a job type thinking.

If this is a real sport, then conference champions...in real sports...go to playoffs. Conference strength is taken into account in SEEDING...not access.

The very act of all conference champions having access will immediately increase parity in recruiting, media interest, and fan interest in all non-P5 programs which ultimately leads to more financial parity.

If this is a real sport. Which its not. Never mind.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I can't argue with any point you are making and in fact I even agree with most of it. But giving a seat to all conference champs adds another game or 2 to the schedule - This CTE stuff is going to put a halt to that.

If the number of teams with a legitimate shot at winning a FBS tournament could be invited I would be all in - if a Sunbelt or MAC team fit that description in a given year - so be it.

(08-03-2017 11:27 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:37 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:27 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A G5 playoff that feeds in to a FBS playoff with P5 is a good idea. By itself it is nothing.

This is not the answer! The fatal flaw in this is that the "Best G5" could have a bad night and get knocked out before they even get in. I call it a fatal flaw because I am firmly against auto bids for anyone. Even though there is way too much room for debate and openings for collusion and/or other politics, I still say the the best 8 teams should be in regardless of a conference championship or not.

Having a 4 team playoff all but guarantees G5 exclusion 9 out of 10 years. An 8 team playoff would give the G5 a decent opportunity to earn a spot or two every year however. Like I said - a team like Marshall could go 1,000-0 but beat Umass for all 1,000 wins - that does not mean they are one of the best 8 teams in the country.

You just cannot give everyone a chance like the basketball tournament does. In fact the death blow to the G5 and an 8 team playoff is already happening now with all of this CTE talk. Adding even more games is not going to happen - it may even go in the other direction once the dust settles on this.

CTE is like smoking - common sense tells EVERYONE it is bad but nobody wants to admit it because there is sooooooooo much money to be made (and lost).

Your basic problem is that you have a monopoly that suppresses parity in the sport.

You then use that lack of parity as an excuse for why the monopoly should be maintained.

You aren't employable because you don't have a job type thinking.

If this is a real sport, then conference champions...in real sports...go to playoffs. Conference strength is taken into account in SEEDING...not access.

The very act of all conference champions having access will immediately increase parity in recruiting, media interest, and fan interest in all non-P5 programs which ultimately leads to more financial parity.

If this is a real sport. Which its not. Never mind.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I can't argue with any point you are making and in fact I even agree with most of it. But giving a seat to all conference champs adds another game or 2 to the schedule - This CTE stuff is going to put a halt to that.

If the number of teams with a legitimate shot at winning a FBS tournament could be invited I would be all in - if a Sunbelt or MAC team fit that description in a given year - so be it.

I actually think CTE could eventually be the end of the G5. Why? Because I think that eventually players will be like baseball pitchers with closely monitored pitche counts. Football players will be given play counts or they will have impact meters on thier helmets that tally cumulative impacts. However its done, I think the total number of impacts per player will be reduced by some mechanism--be it by total number of impacts on a collision counter or by simply restricting the number of plays a player can be on the field for.

The result of this change will be the need to expand the rosters and the scholarship limits. That will mean the front line recruits currently in the G5 will suddenly become players getting reasonable playing time in the P5. Thats the end of G5 being in any way competitive with the P5.

(08-03-2017 09:37 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Your basic problem is that you have a monopoly that suppresses parity in the sport.

You then use that lack of parity as an excuse for why the monopoly should be maintained.

Well said.

(08-03-2017 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 11:27 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:37 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 09:27 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A G5 playoff that feeds in to a FBS playoff with P5 is a good idea. By itself it is nothing.

This is not the answer! The fatal flaw in this is that the "Best G5" could have a bad night and get knocked out before they even get in. I call it a fatal flaw because I am firmly against auto bids for anyone. Even though there is way too much room for debate and openings for collusion and/or other politics, I still say the the best 8 teams should be in regardless of a conference championship or not.

Having a 4 team playoff all but guarantees G5 exclusion 9 out of 10 years. An 8 team playoff would give the G5 a decent opportunity to earn a spot or two every year however. Like I said - a team like Marshall could go 1,000-0 but beat Umass for all 1,000 wins - that does not mean they are one of the best 8 teams in the country.

You just cannot give everyone a chance like the basketball tournament does. In fact the death blow to the G5 and an 8 team playoff is already happening now with all of this CTE talk. Adding even more games is not going to happen - it may even go in the other direction once the dust settles on this.

CTE is like smoking - common sense tells EVERYONE it is bad but nobody wants to admit it because there is sooooooooo much money to be made (and lost).

Your basic problem is that you have a monopoly that suppresses parity in the sport.

You then use that lack of parity as an excuse for why the monopoly should be maintained.

You aren't employable because you don't have a job type thinking.

If this is a real sport, then conference champions...in real sports...go to playoffs. Conference strength is taken into account in SEEDING...not access.

The very act of all conference champions having access will immediately increase parity in recruiting, media interest, and fan interest in all non-P5 programs which ultimately leads to more financial parity.

If this is a real sport. Which its not. Never mind.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I can't argue with any point you are making and in fact I even agree with most of it. But giving a seat to all conference champs adds another game or 2 to the schedule - This CTE stuff is going to put a halt to that.

If the number of teams with a legitimate shot at winning a FBS tournament could be invited I would be all in - if a Sunbelt or MAC team fit that description in a given year - so be it.

I actually think CTE could eventually be the end of the G5. Why? Because I think that eventually players will be like baseball pitchers with closely monitored pitche counts. Football players will be given play counts or they will have impact meters on thier helmets that tally cumulative impacts. However its done, I think the total number of impacts per player will be reduced by some mechanism--be it by total number of impacts on a collision counter or by simply restricting the number of plays a player can be on the field for.

The result of this change will be the need to expand the rosters and the scholarship limits. That will mean the front line recruits currently in the G5 will suddenly become players getting reasonable playing time in the P5. Thats the end of G5 being in any way competitive with the P5.

If you get to that point its dead anyway because High School will already be dead. Your P5 product will be crappy anyway at that point.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Thing about the top rated G5 champ, is the committee has seemed to place a higher value on Nonconference results for that team than conference. Your conference play has an impact, but it's not going to make you. If an AAC team goes 8-0 in league but loses to 2 weak P5's in OOC play, that doesn't make them the best G5 champ just because they won a tougher league.

Teams have no control over their conference schedule, so the biggest emphasis is always going to be the games they do control. its why Marshall wasn't the highest for most of 2014 and also why Temple wasn't considered last season.