(12-14-2017 08:26 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:59 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:50 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 04:34 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Someone posted the idea here a while back, but the NCAA had some cajones they should sponsor a playoff with G5 champs and 1-3 teams that are left out of the playoff (this year maybe Ohio St, So Cal, and Auburn). Would make a TON of money and may create an NCAA/NIT situation down the road.

I'm too young to remember this, but is that how the NCAA basketball tournament came about? Isn't the NIT older?

The NCAA could create a college football playoff, invite all the champs, and of course the P5 teams invited would decline. But the NCAA could declare their playoff winner the D1 FBS champion. Would the P5 schools eventually start participating?

This is a very good question, your whole post indicates there could be change in the football landscape, see the networks are banking on things will stay the same from now on, Iam thinking things are going to change for the overall picture for college football and all FBS teams

This has been covered earlier, but in 1970 Marquette and Al McGuire turned down the NCAA for the NIT due to be upset about their seeding. The NCAA I believe made a rule a NCAA team could not accept a bid if offered an NCAA bid. I have been unable to find this on the internet but I thought I remembered this back the 70's. The NCAA also starting expanding the field and basically destroyed the NIT. The NIT did not attempt the anti-trust when this happened. NIT would finally do this decades later but it was too late. NCAA just bought the NIT thus ending the anti-trust issues. Again, the NCAA use to control everything until the 80's and the supreme court ruled the NCAA was violating anti-trust law in football. Thus the creation of today's power conferences and the beginning of the end of NCAA powers.

What many G5 want is the NCAA to take back control because they spread the TV money evenly. The supreme court has ruled this was unlawful. The majority for the power conference come from TV contracts and the CFP agreement with the 10 conferences. Precedent would go with the conferences creating their own contracts and opting not to be part of the NCAA. One reason the NCAA does not want the P5 to bolt and create their own Basketball Tournament. Odds are CBS or another provider would bolt to that over the NCAA tournament. Just the cold reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...f_Oklahoma

Correct. That said, the NCAA tournament also did things differently--most notably--a much larger field. That was attractive to the public and was adopted by the NIT (though the NCAA tournament would typically enlarge the field every time the NIT matched them). If the public sees an 8 team NCAA Playoff work successfully at the FBS level--its hard for the CFP to say it wont work. If the general public sees a 10 member NCAA Selection Committee with all 10 conferences equally represented issuing reasonable fair and equitable rankings---the current stacked biased committee the CFP uses will be seen for the sham it is. Once that happens, the CFP is undermined. Effectively, it will have to move toward a more fair and reasonable model.

So, in some ways an NIT could be very well be a HUGE "success" for the G5 even if it never comes close to replacing the CFP.

(12-14-2017 08:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 08:26 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:59 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:50 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 04:34 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Someone posted the idea here a while back, but the NCAA had some cajones they should sponsor a playoff with G5 champs and 1-3 teams that are left out of the playoff (this year maybe Ohio St, So Cal, and Auburn). Would make a TON of money and may create an NCAA/NIT situation down the road.

I'm too young to remember this, but is that how the NCAA basketball tournament came about? Isn't the NIT older?

The NCAA could create a college football playoff, invite all the champs, and of course the P5 teams invited would decline. But the NCAA could declare their playoff winner the D1 FBS champion. Would the P5 schools eventually start participating?

This is a very good question, your whole post indicates there could be change in the football landscape, see the networks are banking on things will stay the same from now on, Iam thinking things are going to change for the overall picture for college football and all FBS teams

This has been covered earlier, but in 1970 Marquette and Al McGuire turned down the NCAA for the NIT due to be upset about their seeding. The NCAA I believe made a rule a NCAA team could not accept a bid if offered an NCAA bid. I have been unable to find this on the internet but I thought I remembered this back the 70's. The NCAA also starting expanding the field and basically destroyed the NIT. The NIT did not attempt the anti-trust when this happened. NIT would finally do this decades later but it was too late. NCAA just bought the NIT thus ending the anti-trust issues. Again, the NCAA use to control everything until the 80's and the supreme court ruled the NCAA was violating anti-trust law in football. Thus the creation of today's power conferences and the beginning of the end of NCAA powers.

What many G5 want is the NCAA to take back control because they spread the TV money evenly. The supreme court has ruled this was unlawful. The majority for the power conference come from TV contracts and the CFP agreement with the 10 conferences. Precedent would go with the conferences creating their own contracts and opting not to be part of the NCAA. One reason the NCAA does not want the P5 to bolt and create their own Basketball Tournament. Odds are CBS or another provider would bolt to that over the NCAA tournament. Just the cold reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...f_Oklahoma

Correct. That said, the NCAA tournament also did things differently--most notably--a much larger field. That was attractive to the public and was adopted by the NIT (though the NCAA tournament would typically enlarge the field every time the NIT matched them). If the public sees an 8 team NCAA Playoff work successfully at the FBS level--its hard for the CFP to say it wont work. If the general public sees a 10 member NCAA Selection Committee with all 10 conferences equally represented issuing reasonable fair and equitable rankings---the current stacked biased committee the CFP uses will be seen for the sham it is. Once that happens, the CFP is undermined. Effectively, it will have to move toward a more fair and reasonable model.

So, in some ways an NIT could be very well be a HUGE "success" for the G5 even if it never comes close to replacing the CFP.

AC,

Will I live to see this, probably not. But I think you will see a Power playoff of 8 teams. I also see some G5 teams being invited to join Power conferences. However here is the caveat. It will go back to Div 1 and Div 1AA. AAC will not be included but some AAC teams will be invited. Probably those with the money that can buy their way in. I see SMU, Houston and UConn able to do this.

I believe you will see 72 Power teams created into either 8 divisions or conferences. Using seating based upon the divisional winner determined by the CFP. Easiest and most graceful winner. I look for ND and BYU to be included. Then a incredible fight for the last six slots on the rescue plan.

Each Division playing a nine team schedule with the non power teams replacing FCS.

(12-14-2017 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I cant believe the G5 commissioners would even consider it--but apparently they did discuss it a bit before discarding it as essentially impossible at this time.


Brett McMurphy‏Verified account
@Brett_McMurphy
8h8 hours ago
More
Sun Belt’s Karl Benson tells @GregMcElroy Group of 5 commissioners have had “some casual conversations (about a Group of 5 playoff), nothing serious because we’re under contract w/@CFBPlayoff ... but right now everyone is happy where we are”

McMurphy is not an unbiased reporter. He's been pushing this agenda non stop as if it's his personal mission.

Of course you would get the Sun Belt commish to talk. They've got the most to gain. Under the current system, they won't sniff the NY6 bowl unless there is the perfect storm of events, such as an undefeated Sun Belt team and lousy AAC and MWC champs. That may happen at most once in 12 years.

What's in this for the AAC, who has had their champ play in NY6 or BCS bowls 3 out of 5 years?

(12-14-2017 07:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But these commissioners have fiscal responsibilities. If accepting symbolic second-class status will make their conferences more money, then it is rational for them to discuss proposals that make that trade-off.

Except there is no evidence for this proposition, and the FCS experience points in the opposite direction.

Maybe if a G5 playoff was approved alongside an expansion of the real playoff to 8, with a G5 automatic bid, then maybe a G5 tournament championship on semifinals weekend makes sense. But I doubt it. A G5 playoff would most likely come at the expense of their inclusion in the real playoff.

Lower FBS has spent an enormous amount of money, time and propaganda pushing the idea that they are sorta kinda in the same division as Alabama and Ohio State. A G5 playoff flushes all that down the toilet, for highly speculative returns.

I'd expect the AAC schools athletic donations to crater if they did this.

You missed the point. I didn't say thar the G5 should create their own playoff. I said it makes sense they would discuss and explore it seriously.

Agreed, if I were sitting in their chairs, I would want a professional evaluation done, not just rely on my half-formed opinions which have not been rigorously tested against data as best we can.

Quote:But, how much headway has all that G5 propaganda achieved?

Well, UCF is about to play Auburn in the Peach Bowl. That's worth something. On the other hand, FAU and FIU are playing nobody cares in the Nobody Cares Bowl. FBS *has* helped them overcome the assumption that they were unaccredited diploma mills, which is what I figured they were when I was in college and looking at graduate schools, just based on their names.

Taking a random test example, MAC Ball State in Indiana vs MVC Indiana State in Indiana. Ball State is US NEws #187, while Indiana State is Tier 2, somewhere in the #231-300 range.
MAC Northern Illinois #231-300 vs MVC Illinois State #159. Advantage Valley.

Let's test the Louisiana Sun Belt vs Southland directional schools.
Louisiana-Monroe (formerly NELA) #231-300.
Louisiana-Lafayette (formerly SWLA) #231-300
Southeastern Louisiana #114-142 in Regional Universities South
Northeastern University of LA #114-142 in Regional Universities South.

I could compare SAT scores, but I'm less convinced now that I was 10 minutes ago that FBS helps schools compete with local peers or semi-peers.

Quote:And, do you think FCS would be better off without a playoff?

No. The playoff isn't the problem with FCS, it's the programs. Specifically, the lack of money-generating programs.

The economics of FBS are driven by 20-50 major programs. Everybody else is leeching off of them, economically. To create a G5 playoff is to cut yourself off from the Penn States and UT-Austins.

The G5 gets $100 million from the CFP. I don't see a G5 playoff coming anywhere close to that. Plus, by removing your top 4 teams, you are losing the higher paying bowls.

I don't see how you can do both. These proposals essentially have the G5 telling the CFP, "We will take your access slot but are going to take our next 4 teams and start out own playoff." If I am the CFP, I say, "We will keep the access slot and our money."

If the CFP thinks there is money out there for a tournament with Auburn and Ohio State, why not expand the CFP and keep those teams in?

If I am Auburn or Ohio State, do I want to play 2, maybe 3, games and take home the same money that I can get for 1 game?

(12-14-2017 07:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But these commissioners have fiscal responsibilities. If accepting symbolic second-class status will make their conferences more money, then it is rational for them to discuss proposals that make that trade-off.

Except there is no evidence for this proposition, and the FCS experience points in the opposite direction.

Maybe if a G5 playoff was approved alongside an expansion of the real playoff to 8, with a G5 automatic bid, then maybe a G5 tournament championship on semifinals weekend makes sense. But I doubt it. A G5 playoff would most likely come at the expense of their inclusion in the real playoff.

Lower FBS has spent an enormous amount of money, time and propaganda pushing the idea that they are sorta kinda in the same division as Alabama and Ohio State. A G5 playoff flushes all that down the toilet, for highly speculative returns.

I'd expect the AAC schools athletic donations to crater if they did this.

You missed the point. I didn't say thar the G5 should create their own playoff. I said it makes sense they would discuss and explore it seriously.

But, how much headway has all that G5 propaganda achieved?

And, do you think FCS would be better off without a playoff?

Not now. They would have been better off had they never agreed to the D1-a/D1-aa split in the first place. While I don’t think it’s the case—it’s not impossible that the G5 has done the same thing to themselves in agreeing to autonomy in conjunction with a CFP that gives them a bowl (that essentially represents the glass ceiling of G5 football)—but no legit way into the playoff.

A separate G5 playoff would cause immense long term damage to the G5 schools in the same token as the 1a 1aa spilt.

I was listening to the Stewart Mandel podcast and he seemed giddy about this idea and I couldnt understand why. If I'm UCF Id much rather play Auburn in the Peach Bowl than host Troy in a semifinal and then Boise St in a final.

They stated there would be mass amounts of interest??? I don't see why a G5 playoff would generate anymore interest than the current bowls? Look at the FCS playoffs. The peach bowl will generate more national interest than the FCS championship game

Also, we used to have a G5 national championship game in the form of the Liberty Bowl matching up the CUSA and MWC champions. It was good but not nearly as successful or meaningful as Boise St beating Oklahoma in the fiesta bowl

(12-14-2017 08:26 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:59 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:50 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 04:34 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Someone posted the idea here a while back, but the NCAA had some cajones they should sponsor a playoff with G5 champs and 1-3 teams that are left out of the playoff (this year maybe Ohio St, So Cal, and Auburn). Would make a TON of money and may create an NCAA/NIT situation down the road.

I'm too young to remember this, but is that how the NCAA basketball tournament came about? Isn't the NIT older?

The NCAA could create a college football playoff, invite all the champs, and of course the P5 teams invited would decline. But the NCAA could declare their playoff winner the D1 FBS champion. Would the P5 schools eventually start participating?

This is a very good question, your whole post indicates there could be change in the football landscape, see the networks are banking on things will stay the same from now on, Iam thinking things are going to change for the overall picture for college football and all FBS teams

This has been covered earlier, but in 1970 Marquette and Al McGuire turned down the NCAA for the NIT due to be upset about their seeding. The NCAA I believe made a rule a NCAA team could not accept a bid if offered an NCAA bid. I have been unable to find this on the internet but I thought I remembered this back the 70's. The NCAA also starting expanding the field and basically destroyed the NIT. The NIT did not attempt the anti-trust when this happened. NIT would finally do this decades later but it was too late. NCAA just bought the NIT thus ending the anti-trust issues. Again, the NCAA use to control everything until the 80's and the supreme court ruled the NCAA was violating anti-trust law in football. Thus the creation of today's power conferences and the beginning of the end of NCAA powers.

What many G5 want is the NCAA to take back control because they spread the TV money evenly. The supreme court has ruled this was unlawful. The majority for the power conference come from TV contracts and the CFP agreement with the 10 conferences. Precedent would go with the conferences creating their own contracts and opting not to be part of the NCAA. One reason the NCAA does not want the P5 to bolt and create their own Basketball Tournament. Odds are CBS or another provider would bolt to that over the NCAA tournament. Just the cold reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...f_Oklahoma

I'm more worried about playoff access than $. It's stupid that half the teams aren't able to make the so-called playoff. It also creates an uneven playing field in recruiting. The system is setup to maintain inequity, and that's what shouldn't be legal.

(12-14-2017 07:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:58 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Iam fully aware the 5 autonomous conferences have all the power in college Football at least right now
I hoping that live streaming will blow to smithereens what the networks have built, just my feelings

The power conferences have power because they have the schools that draw national interest.

The general sports fan cares about Oklahoma vs Georgia. They do not care about Memphis vs San Jose State. That's not a network creation

Temple Vs. Notre Dame is something to think about. Do you think people want to see Oklahoma play Kansas in football? They might have interest in seeing an Oklahoma Vs. UCF or Memphis instead of kansas. You do have deadweights in the P5 that do not draw national Interests like some schools in the ACC.

(12-14-2017 10:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 07:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But these commissioners have fiscal responsibilities. If accepting symbolic second-class status will make their conferences more money, then it is rational for them to discuss proposals that make that trade-off.

Except there is no evidence for this proposition, and the FCS experience points in the opposite direction.

Maybe if a G5 playoff was approved alongside an expansion of the real playoff to 8, with a G5 automatic bid, then maybe a G5 tournament championship on semifinals weekend makes sense. But I doubt it. A G5 playoff would most likely come at the expense of their inclusion in the real playoff.

Lower FBS has spent an enormous amount of money, time and propaganda pushing the idea that they are sorta kinda in the same division as Alabama and Ohio State. A G5 playoff flushes all that down the toilet, for highly speculative returns.

I'd expect the AAC schools athletic donations to crater if they did this.

You missed the point. I didn't say thar the G5 should create their own playoff. I said it makes sense they would discuss and explore it seriously.

But, how much headway has all that G5 propaganda achieved?

And, do you think FCS would be better off without a playoff?

Not now. They would have been better off had they never agreed to the D1-a/D1-aa split in the first place. While I don’t think it’s the case—it’s not impossible that the G5 has done the same thing to themselves in agreeing to autonomy in conjunction with a CFP that gives them a bowl (that essentially represents the glass ceiling of G5 football)—but no legit way into the playoff.

I recall pre-1978 college football, and i don't recall the current FCS schools being better off under that regime. To the contrary they are probably somewhat better off now.

And compare to hoops. Is MEAC basketball, which plays for the same national title as Kentucky and Duke, any better off than MEAC football, which doesn't compete for the same title as Alabama and Notre Dame? I don't believe so.

There's no evidence that shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic improves things. We can call the Sun Belt FCS or FBS or whatever and they can formally be linked competitively with Auburn or not, and they are still the Sun Belt.

(12-14-2017 11:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 07:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But these commissioners have fiscal responsibilities. If accepting symbolic second-class status will make their conferences more money, then it is rational for them to discuss proposals that make that trade-off.

Except there is no evidence for this proposition, and the FCS experience points in the opposite direction.

Maybe if a G5 playoff was approved alongside an expansion of the real playoff to 8, with a G5 automatic bid, then maybe a G5 tournament championship on semifinals weekend makes sense. But I doubt it. A G5 playoff would most likely come at the expense of their inclusion in the real playoff.

Lower FBS has spent an enormous amount of money, time and propaganda pushing the idea that they are sorta kinda in the same division as Alabama and Ohio State. A G5 playoff flushes all that down the toilet, for highly speculative returns.

I'd expect the AAC schools athletic donations to crater if they did this.

You missed the point. I didn't say thar the G5 should create their own playoff. I said it makes sense they would discuss and explore it seriously.

But, how much headway has all that G5 propaganda achieved?

And, do you think FCS would be better off without a playoff?

Not now. They would have been better off had they never agreed to the D1-a/D1-aa split in the first place. While I don’t think it’s the case—it’s not impossible that the G5 has done the same thing to themselves in agreeing to autonomy in conjunction with a CFP that gives them a bowl (that essentially represents the glass ceiling of G5 football)—but no legit way into the playoff.

I recall pre-1978 college football, and i don't recall the current FCS schools being better off under that regime. To the contrary they are probably somewhat better off now.

And compare to hoops. Is MEAC basketball, which plays for the same national title as Kentucky and Duke, any better off than MEAC football, which doesn't compete for the title as Alabama and Notre Dame? I don't believe so.

Ask the same question about VCU.

Hell, I don't even know if Butler has a football team, but they played for a basketball title. Coastal Carolina just won the baseball title, but their football team wouldn't get a sniff at 13-0. Everyone's got a chance in every sport but one.

(12-14-2017 11:13 PM)solohawks Wrote:  A separate G5 playoff would cause immense long term damage to the G5 schools in the same token as the 1a 1aa spilt.

I was listening to the Stewart Mandel podcast and he seemed giddy about this idea and I couldnt understand why. If I'm UCF Id much rather play Auburn in the Peach Bowl than host Troy in a semifinal and then Boise St in a final.

They stated there would be mass amounts of interest??? I don't see why a G5 playoff would generate anymore interest than the current bowls? Look at the FCS playoffs. The peach bowl will generate more national interest than the FCS championship game

Also, we used to have a G5 national championship game in the form of the Liberty Bowl matching up the CUSA and MWC champions. It was good but not nearly as successful or meaningful as Boise St beating Oklahoma in the fiesta bowl

What the P5 would do to kill the interest is grabbed all the G5 and top FCS schools to be part of the P5 to even make it more of a big gap as well. The G5 playoffs could hurt the P5 playoffs because of the schools like UCF, USF, Boise State, Houston, San Diego State, Fresno State, Hawaii, Cincinnati, Memphis, Temple, East Carolina, eastern Washington, north Dakota State and so forth.

(12-14-2017 11:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 07:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But these commissioners have fiscal responsibilities. If accepting symbolic second-class status will make their conferences more money, then it is rational for them to discuss proposals that make that trade-off.

Except there is no evidence for this proposition, and the FCS experience points in the opposite direction.

Maybe if a G5 playoff was approved alongside an expansion of the real playoff to 8, with a G5 automatic bid, then maybe a G5 tournament championship on semifinals weekend makes sense. But I doubt it. A G5 playoff would most likely come at the expense of their inclusion in the real playoff.

Lower FBS has spent an enormous amount of money, time and propaganda pushing the idea that they are sorta kinda in the same division as Alabama and Ohio State. A G5 playoff flushes all that down the toilet, for highly speculative returns.

I'd expect the AAC schools athletic donations to crater if they did this.

You missed the point. I didn't say thar the G5 should create their own playoff. I said it makes sense they would discuss and explore it seriously.

But, how much headway has all that G5 propaganda achieved?

And, do you think FCS would be better off without a playoff?

Not now. They would have been better off had they never agreed to the D1-a/D1-aa split in the first place. While I don’t think it’s the case—it’s not impossible that the G5 has done the same thing to themselves in agreeing to autonomy in conjunction with a CFP that gives them a bowl (that essentially represents the glass ceiling of G5 football)—but no legit way into the playoff.

I recall pre-1978 college football, and i don't recall the current FCS schools being better off under that regime. To the contrary they are probably somewhat better off now.

And compare to hoops. Is MEAC basketball, which plays for the same national title as Kentucky and Duke, any better off than MEAC football, which doesn't compete for the same title as Alabama and Notre Dame? I don't believe so.

There's no evidence that shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic improves things. We can call the Sun Belt FCS or FBS or whatever and they can formally be linked competitively with Auburn or not, and they are still the Sun Belt.

If current FCS schools are better off now than they were before why are so many upgrading/trying to get an invite to uograde

I would argue that FCS schools are worse off now than they were before.

The post season structure as it relates to the G5 is going to be a topic of debate for a long time. Several angles at play.

1) Does expanding the college football playoff from 4 to 8 teams help the case of the G5? Is it just going to be a pretext to give the P5 champs autobids?

2) Will the AAC be worthy of a contract bowl in another 7 or 8 years? That might force expansion from a NY6 to NY8 so the existing P conferences don't lose spaces.

3) Are we going to see a P4 within a few years as a way to increase playoff representation for each conference?

4) Could the powers that be push for 16 team conferences as a requirement for contract status pushing FBS to a P6, P7, P8 format?

5) Will the money get better for the G5 (or G4) on the next CFP contract or will it be reduced, cut or eliminated?

6) Is the G5 going to be fed up with the CFP Top 25 system and decided to put together their own playoff? How would that be structured? A bs committee or objective criteria?

7) Could the G5 put together a series of bowls for its non CFP champs? Holiday, Sun, Liberty, Independence each with a G4 champ against a Top 25 CFP team.

8) Will the G5 (or G4) decide its time to put together a coast-2-coast TV contract and do some realignment to support it?

I think we all agree that a couple of variables are at play. More realistically however I'd say its closer to 7 or 8 possible variables here.

The lowest hanging fruit is probably #7. The G5 could make a move to put together a second tier of bowl games for 2020. An upgrade over their current situation without a radical redesign.

G5 playoff or not to G5 playoff....first let's see what the money contract will look like beyond the CFP. It could be another 12 years of the same system but 50% more money distributed for all conferences.

(12-14-2017 07:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I would be fine with approaching the NCAA with the idea of creating the "NCAA FBS Championship Tournament" where ALL FBS champions are automatically invited and the field is filled out with the top teams left over after the CFP bowls are filled. It would have its own Selection Committee and would initially have a field of 8 (it would automatically expand to 10 if in any season more than 8 FBS champions accepted their invites). It would offer NCAA credits for each round of participation, would be played on the campus of the highest seed, and only the final championship game would be on neutral ground. The NCAA Selection Committee would be 10 members (one rep from each conference) and would publish rankings every week--but only meet once a month for the first 8 weeks of the season. I think the committee may be the most important part of the idea as it would show how an unbiased equally represented committee drastically differs from the bought and paid for CFP.

An alternative would be to create the Champions Bowl Series which would create 3 bowls for the 4 G5 champs not in the access bowl. It would be financed by setting aside 5 million a year of the CFP money (taken from the performance portion of the G5 CFP shared fund allocation) in order to build a 15 million dollar pot of money by the next bowl cycle. The gola would be to create 3 new bowl games. Two of the new games would pit G5 champ #2 and G5 champ #3 against the 2 highest ranking P5 teams NOT involved in a CFP sponsored bowl (so the G5 games are filled after the playoffs, contract bowls, and access bowls). A third new bowl would pit the #4 G5 champ and the #5 G5 champ against one another. The games wold be owned by the G5 and would be pay 5 million each (1 million to the G5 teams--4 million to the P5 teams). An alternative to full ownership would be to partner 50-50 with a network to reduce risk.

As for a G5 playoff---its fools gold. If there was a 150 million dollar market for G5 champ vs G5 champ type games---dont you think we would have had a network or two offering buckets of money to G5 conferences if they will commit to that kind of pairing? Where are those offers?

There isn't a big market and they know it.

But consider this.
I'm using Massey Composite for an 8 team G5 playoff
Using this year's results. UCF goes to the Access Bowl
Playoff pool, Auto bids: Boise State (28), Toledo (30), FAU (35), and we will say Troy (47), since the Sun Belt didn't have a title game. At-large: Memphis (21), SDSU (33), USF (34), Fresno State (45)
First round conference champs host, second round highest-rated hosts, championship neutral site.

December 16
Fresno at Boise State (yep three in a row)
USF at Toledo
SDSU at FAU
Memphis at Troy

Assume highest rated wins
December 23
Toledo at Boise State
SDSU at Memphis

Assume highest rated wins
January 6
Boise State vs. Memphis at a pre-determined site. I'd suggest warm weather stadiums of 20,000 to 35,000 seats. So we will say this one is at BBVA Compass Stadium in Houston.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?
First you turn the whole blooming thing over to ESPN Events. They can cut their staffs because there is no need to have people on the ground in Albuquerque, Montgomery and quit paying a rights fee to NOLA. They get four telecasts with much lower overhead. But they can sell naming rights. Since conference champs are hosting the first round you can have the Glidden West quarterfinal, R+L Carriers Southeast quarterfinal, Raycom Media South quarterfinal and Bad Boy Mowers Midwest quarterfinal.
Teams playing in a conference title game can start pre-selling round one as soon as they clinch their division.
Only one team is traveling for each game and they aren't spending four nights at a bowl site and aren't traveling their band. Very cheap to do vs. a bowl.

THE BIG BENEFIT
Putting the games in the slots previously occupied by a mishmash of bowls we can presume they will draw an audience of one million to two million. When round two arrives you are replacing the Dollar General Bowl in Mobile and Lockheed Armed Forces Bowl in Fort Worth with the American Football Playoff BUT the audience has greater familiarity with the teams because they were on TV last week and were on two weeks before that first round game in the conference title game.

By the championship game you have two teams that have been in a significant TV slot three times in five weeks.

So you end up raising the brand of the teams playing and especially those advancing.

Downside you end up killing six bowls affiliated with G5 leagues but instead of losing 12 post-season slots, you lose four (because playoff has 8) though those could be saved by playing on CBSSN or Stadium or such.

The money vs CFP isn't enough to call peanuts but the money vs the bowls being replaced is better thanks to the lower costs and likely better ticket sales.

The exposure is the real kicker. A team doing well can elevate its brand recognition.

(12-14-2017 09:08 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I cant believe the G5 commissioners would even consider it--but apparently they did discuss it a bit before discarding it as essentially impossible at this time.


Brett McMurphy‏Verified account
@Brett_McMurphy
8h8 hours ago
More
Sun Belt’s Karl Benson tells @GregMcElroy Group of 5 commissioners have had “some casual conversations (about a Group of 5 playoff), nothing serious because we’re under contract w/@CFBPlayoff ... but right now everyone is happy where we are”

McMurphy is not an unbiased reporter. He's been pushing this agenda non stop as if it's his personal mission.

Of course you would get the Sun Belt commish to talk. They've got the most to gain. Under the current system, they won't sniff the NY6 bowl unless there is the perfect storm of events, such as an undefeated Sun Belt team and lousy AAC and MWC champs. That may happen at most once in 12 years.

What's in this for the AAC, who has had their champ play in NY6 or BCS bowls 3 out of 5 years?

AState's AD has said he's against and the other AD's don't support it. Benson has already told the league he is retiring at the end of his contract so he really has nothing to lose saying whatever he thinks.

But let's not twist his words to make them more than they are.

All he said was that the commissioners had talked about it. That is not the same thing as endorsing it.

(12-14-2017 11:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 07:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But these commissioners have fiscal responsibilities. If accepting symbolic second-class status will make their conferences more money, then it is rational for them to discuss proposals that make that trade-off.

Except there is no evidence for this proposition, and the FCS experience points in the opposite direction.

Maybe if a G5 playoff was approved alongside an expansion of the real playoff to 8, with a G5 automatic bid, then maybe a G5 tournament championship on semifinals weekend makes sense. But I doubt it. A G5 playoff would most likely come at the expense of their inclusion in the real playoff.

Lower FBS has spent an enormous amount of money, time and propaganda pushing the idea that they are sorta kinda in the same division as Alabama and Ohio State. A G5 playoff flushes all that down the toilet, for highly speculative returns.

I'd expect the AAC schools athletic donations to crater if they did this.

You missed the point. I didn't say thar the G5 should create their own playoff. I said it makes sense they would discuss and explore it seriously.

But, how much headway has all that G5 propaganda achieved?

And, do you think FCS would be better off without a playoff?

Not now. They would have been better off had they never agreed to the D1-a/D1-aa split in the first place. While I don’t think it’s the case—it’s not impossible that the G5 has done the same thing to themselves in agreeing to autonomy in conjunction with a CFP that gives them a bowl (that essentially represents the glass ceiling of G5 football)—but no legit way into the playoff.

I recall pre-1978 college football, and i don't recall the current FCS schools being better off under that regime. To the contrary they are probably somewhat better off now.

And compare to hoops. Is MEAC basketball, which plays for the same national title as Kentucky and Duke, any better off than MEAC football, which doesn't compete for the same title as Alabama and Notre Dame? I don't believe so.

There's no evidence that shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic improves things. We can call the Sun Belt FCS or FBS or whatever and they can formally be linked competitively with Auburn or not, and they are still the Sun Belt.

Not only were the future FCS schools mostly worse off (no post-season access) outside the few that had a regional rival going home-home they played basically the same schedules except buy games didn't have nearly the impact on their budget.

The current G5 schools mostly won big with the move from that era. They have gained post-season access they didn't have before with the bowl explosion. With the limited scholie schools out of the top division, they were no longer middle of the pack in budget and facilities and a number of made bigger investments. They have a path to a major bowl and buy game payouts have risen far faster than inflation. Plus they quit capping scholarships below the FBS maximum.

The only G5 schools arguably worse off than they were in 1977 would be the schools who were in the WAC in 1977 and didn't get an invite to the Pac-12.

(12-14-2017 11:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 10:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 07:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But these commissioners have fiscal responsibilities. If accepting symbolic second-class status will make their conferences more money, then it is rational for them to discuss proposals that make that trade-off.

Except there is no evidence for this proposition, and the FCS experience points in the opposite direction.

Maybe if a G5 playoff was approved alongside an expansion of the real playoff to 8, with a G5 automatic bid, then maybe a G5 tournament championship on semifinals weekend makes sense. But I doubt it. A G5 playoff would most likely come at the expense of their inclusion in the real playoff.

Lower FBS has spent an enormous amount of money, time and propaganda pushing the idea that they are sorta kinda in the same division as Alabama and Ohio State. A G5 playoff flushes all that down the toilet, for highly speculative returns.

I'd expect the AAC schools athletic donations to crater if they did this.

You missed the point. I didn't say thar the G5 should create their own playoff. I said it makes sense they would discuss and explore it seriously.

But, how much headway has all that G5 propaganda achieved?

And, do you think FCS would be better off without a playoff?

Not now. They would have been better off had they never agreed to the D1-a/D1-aa split in the first place. While I don’t think it’s the case—it’s not impossible that the G5 has done the same thing to themselves in agreeing to autonomy in conjunction with a CFP that gives them a bowl (that essentially represents the glass ceiling of G5 football)—but no legit way into the playoff.

I recall pre-1978 college football, and i don't recall the current FCS schools being better off under that regime. To the contrary they are probably somewhat better off now.

And compare to hoops. Is MEAC basketball, which plays for the same national title as Kentucky and Duke, any better off than MEAC football, which doesn't compete for the same title as Alabama and Notre Dame? I don't believe so.

There's no evidence that shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic improves things. We can call the Sun Belt FCS or FBS or whatever and they can formally be linked competitively with Auburn or not, and they are still the Sun Belt.

Is that right? Because Im pretty sure there was no FCS prior to 1978. There was D-1 and the only levels below that were D2 (scholarship football) and D3. Prior to 1973--there were only 2 divisions--"University" and "College".

FCS came about in 1978 when the D1 was split into D1A and D1AA. D1-AA later was renamed FCS. The split was primarily pushed to try to keep the bigger schools from trying to break away from the NCAA TV Deal that covered every school at the time. They hoped by reducing the number of teams in D1A, the bigger split of the pie would keep the bigger conferences from leaving the NCAA deal. That effort failed after the NCAA vs OK BOR Supreme Court decision in 1984.

The schools that were pushed down to D1-AA were presented with bunch of promises about greater exposure, more TV appearances, and additional monies generated from their playoff by the NCAA to entice them to drop down. The idea was that the shared NCAA TV agreement was to give them more exposure than they currently had--plus the playoff was expected to be spin off alot of dollars. None of those promises or expectations were ever realized.

The additional exposure never happened because the NCAA no longer had control of exposure windows once the power to negotiate the TV agreement for the entire NCAA membership was taken away. The second promise--a playoff-was kept--but it wasnt "huge" and there was absolutely NO financial windfall. It paid very little and nobody really gives a crap about it. The only thing the D1-AA schools got for dropping down was their playoff costs covered by the NCAA. Thats it. No exposure. No money. It was and is a huge set back for all the teams that were demoted.

I dont see how any of those teams are "better off". Many of the teams that were part of that original demotion have spent the intervening 40 years trying to claw their way back to the top level of football. You can ask them---but I dont think many of their fans think they are better off.

(12-15-2017 02:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 07:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I would be fine with approaching the NCAA with the idea of creating the "NCAA FBS Championship Tournament" where ALL FBS champions are automatically invited and the field is filled out with the top teams left over after the CFP bowls are filled. It would have its own Selection Committee and would initially have a field of 8 (it would automatically expand to 10 if in any season more than 8 FBS champions accepted their invites). It would offer NCAA credits for each round of participation, would be played on the campus of the highest seed, and only the final championship game would be on neutral ground. The NCAA Selection Committee would be 10 members (one rep from each conference) and would publish rankings every week--but only meet once a month for the first 8 weeks of the season. I think the committee may be the most important part of the idea as it would show how an unbiased equally represented committee drastically differs from the bought and paid for CFP.

An alternative would be to create the Champions Bowl Series which would create 3 bowls for the 4 G5 champs not in the access bowl. It would be financed by setting aside 5 million a year of the CFP money (taken from the performance portion of the G5 CFP shared fund allocation) in order to build a 15 million dollar pot of money by the next bowl cycle. The gola would be to create 3 new bowl games. Two of the new games would pit G5 champ #2 and G5 champ #3 against the 2 highest ranking P5 teams NOT involved in a CFP sponsored bowl (so the G5 games are filled after the playoffs, contract bowls, and access bowls). A third new bowl would pit the #4 G5 champ and the #5 G5 champ against one another. The games wold be owned by the G5 and would be pay 5 million each (1 million to the G5 teams--4 million to the P5 teams). An alternative to full ownership would be to partner 50-50 with a network to reduce risk.

As for a G5 playoff---its fools gold. If there was a 150 million dollar market for G5 champ vs G5 champ type games---dont you think we would have had a network or two offering buckets of money to G5 conferences if they will commit to that kind of pairing? Where are those offers?

There isn't a big market and they know it.

But consider this.
I'm using Massey Composite for an 8 team G5 playoff
Using this year's results. UCF goes to the Access Bowl
Playoff pool, Auto bids: Boise State (28), Toledo (30), FAU (35), and we will say Troy (47), since the Sun Belt didn't have a title game. At-large: Memphis (21), SDSU (33), USF (34), Fresno State (45)
First round conference champs host, second round highest-rated hosts, championship neutral site.

December 16
Fresno at Boise State (yep three in a row)
USF at Toledo
SDSU at FAU
Memphis at Troy

Assume highest rated wins
December 23
Toledo at Boise State
SDSU at Memphis

Assume highest rated wins
January 6
Boise State vs. Memphis at a pre-determined site. I'd suggest warm weather stadiums of 20,000 to 35,000 seats. So we will say this one is at BBVA Compass Stadium in Houston.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?
First you turn the whole blooming thing over to ESPN Events. They can cut their staffs because there is no need to have people on the ground in Albuquerque, Montgomery and quit paying a rights fee to NOLA. They get four telecasts with much lower overhead. But they can sell naming rights. Since conference champs are hosting the first round you can have the Glidden West quarterfinal, R+L Carriers Southeast quarterfinal, Raycom Media South quarterfinal and Bad Boy Mowers Midwest quarterfinal.
Teams playing in a conference title game can start pre-selling round one as soon as they clinch their division.
Only one team is traveling for each game and they aren't spending four nights at a bowl site and aren't traveling their band. Very cheap to do vs. a bowl.

THE BIG BENEFIT
Putting the games in the slots previously occupied by a mishmash of bowls we can presume they will draw an audience of one million to two million. When round two arrives you are replacing the Dollar General Bowl in Mobile and Lockheed Armed Forces Bowl in Fort Worth with the American Football Playoff BUT the audience has greater familiarity with the teams because they were on TV last week and were on two weeks before that first round game in the conference title game.

By the championship game you have two teams that have been in a significant TV slot three times in five weeks.

So you end up raising the brand of the teams playing and especially those advancing.

Downside you end up killing six bowls affiliated with G5 leagues but instead of losing 12 post-season slots, you lose four (because playoff has 8) though those could be saved by playing on CBSSN or Stadium or such.

The money vs CFP isn't enough to call peanuts but the money vs the bowls being replaced is better thanks to the lower costs and likely better ticket sales.

The exposure is the real kicker. A team doing well can elevate its brand recognition.

The current post season set up is a disaster for the G5. Im not arguing that its not. There is ONE decent post season destination for ONE G5 champ. Miss out on that ONE opportunity, and you tumble azz over ankles from a NYD Fiesta/Peach peak to the hard scrabble valley of Birmingham or Boca.

My biggest argument against the playoff is your doing the P5's toughest job for them. Your basically creating a seperate division. I am adamantly against anything that makes the current separation any worse than it already is. I have no issue with ideas to improve the G5 postseason--my only requirement is that they include both the P5 and G5 and that they can operate in the current CFP environment (which we are stuck with for 9 more years).