(06-13-2018 04:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 04:11 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 03:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 03:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The overall idea is actually pretty good. Just need to most them to more attractive locations and place 75% of the bowl locations east of the Rockies. You'll pair teams based on geography and interest to whatever extent possible.

This year, there are 17 bowls with tie-ins for 29 G5 schools. Five of those bowls are west of the rockies, and each of them has a slot for an MWC team.

That leaves 24 slots for G5's not in the MWC. Only four of those are at western sites, meaning 20 (83%) are east of the Rockies. You can't improve on that by much.

Im talking about the OP's idea for six premium games for the top teams from non-power conferences (not including the AAC). Of the 6 games---3 are located west of the Rockies. No MW team would ever leave the conference foot print to play in these games as proposed. Im suggesting that the locations need to better reflect the school distribution. You dont need 50% of the games west of the Rockies. One game should be west of the Rockies--certainly no more than 2.

I made the line up based on the current tie-ins that the 4 conferences already share. It was just coincidence that the 3 bowl games that the MWC already plays with the other 3 G5 conferences are all western-based games. Maybe when the bowls are restructured that could change.

No matter where the games are played, the conferences should still coordinate with each other to match their top teams up.

Coincidence? Really? Do you expect that the owners of these western based bowls would be OK inviting two eastern teams? Or that those eastern teams would want to travel to such remote locations to play each other instead of playing nearer to home where their fans can watch in person?

If you expect that the MWC would sign on to a plan in which only one of their members will get to play in a bowl their fans would travel to, I don't believe you've thought this through.

You are suggesting replacing one set of meaningless exhibition games that make geographic sense with a different set of meaningless games that make no geographic sense. This is a solution in search of a problem.

You clearly don’t understand what’s being proposed here. Re-read the OP. I used each conferences current bowl tie-ins. Nothing is being replaced and those western based bowls are MWC tie-ins. No two eastern teams are having to travel west to play each other.

In college football today, there is no “ national championship “, there is a “cfb p5” champion for about half of FBS teams and a championship that is not played for...yet... when this other championship is played for you will see a very real shift in recruiting and help balance the talent gap that we have today
Hear me now, believe me later...

(06-13-2018 05:18 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  What is needed is G4 payoff, 1vs4, 1vs3, Game played at higher seeds stadium. winners play G4 championship game..at a predetermined location.

Another AAC troll, lay the crack pipe down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-13-2018 05:18 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  What is needed is G4 payoff, 1vs4, 1vs3, Game played at higher seeds stadium. winners play G4 championship game..at a predetermined location.

So who is AAC adding to cause the G5 to collapse into the G4?

(06-13-2018 06:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 05:18 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  What is needed is G4 payoff, 1vs4, 1vs3, Game played at higher seeds stadium. winners play G4 championship game..at a predetermined location.

So who is AAC adding to cause the G5 to collapse into the G4?

Nebraska

(06-13-2018 05:22 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 04:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 04:11 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 03:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 03:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  This year, there are 17 bowls with tie-ins for 29 G5 schools. Five of those bowls are west of the rockies, and each of them has a slot for an MWC team.

That leaves 24 slots for G5's not in the MWC. Only four of those are at western sites, meaning 20 (83%) are east of the Rockies. You can't improve on that by much.

Im talking about the OP's idea for six premium games for the top teams from non-power conferences (not including the AAC). Of the 6 games---3 are located west of the Rockies. No MW team would ever leave the conference foot print to play in these games as proposed. Im suggesting that the locations need to better reflect the school distribution. You dont need 50% of the games west of the Rockies. One game should be west of the Rockies--certainly no more than 2.

I made the line up based on the current tie-ins that the 4 conferences already share. It was just coincidence that the 3 bowl games that the MWC already plays with the other 3 G5 conferences are all western-based games. Maybe when the bowls are restructured that could change.

No matter where the games are played, the conferences should still coordinate with each other to match their top teams up.

Coincidence? Really? Do you expect that the owners of these western based bowls would be OK inviting two eastern teams? Or that those eastern teams would want to travel to such remote locations to play each other instead of playing nearer to home where their fans can watch in person?

If you expect that the MWC would sign on to a plan in which only one of their members will get to play in a bowl their fans would travel to, I don't believe you've thought this through.

You are suggesting replacing one set of meaningless exhibition games that make geographic sense with a different set of meaningless games that make no geographic sense. This is a solution in search of a problem.

You clearly don’t understand what’s being proposed here. Re-read the OP. I used each conferences current bowl tie-ins. Nothing is being replaced and those western based bowls are MWC tie-ins. No two eastern teams are having to travel west to play each other.

I understand what is being proposed. And I am responding to the objection that it includes too many western based bowls. If somebody wants to change that, they should understand that one of the remaining four G5 conferences (the AAC has already been excluded) will not participate.

If any of these games were more than meaningless exhibitions, maybe the MWC could be brought on board. But they aren't. So why should the MWC give up any of their bowl destinations? I suspect they want to see more western sites, not fewer.

What G5 bowl post season?
Is the winner of the AAC going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Is Boise going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Hell no.

(06-13-2018 08:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  What G5 bowl post season?
Is the winner of the AAC going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Is Boise going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Hell no.

Agree, Boise is insulted in the years they have to play a G5.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-13-2018 07:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 05:22 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 04:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 04:11 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 03:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im talking about the OP's idea for six premium games for the top teams from non-power conferences (not including the AAC). Of the 6 games---3 are located west of the Rockies. No MW team would ever leave the conference foot print to play in these games as proposed. Im suggesting that the locations need to better reflect the school distribution. You dont need 50% of the games west of the Rockies. One game should be west of the Rockies--certainly no more than 2.

I made the line up based on the current tie-ins that the 4 conferences already share. It was just coincidence that the 3 bowl games that the MWC already plays with the other 3 G5 conferences are all western-based games. Maybe when the bowls are restructured that could change.

No matter where the games are played, the conferences should still coordinate with each other to match their top teams up.

Coincidence? Really? Do you expect that the owners of these western based bowls would be OK inviting two eastern teams? Or that those eastern teams would want to travel to such remote locations to play each other instead of playing nearer to home where their fans can watch in person?

If you expect that the MWC would sign on to a plan in which only one of their members will get to play in a bowl their fans would travel to, I don't believe you've thought this through.

You are suggesting replacing one set of meaningless exhibition games that make geographic sense with a different set of meaningless games that make no geographic sense. This is a solution in search of a problem.

You clearly don’t understand what’s being proposed here. Re-read the OP. I used each conferences current bowl tie-ins. Nothing is being replaced and those western based bowls are MWC tie-ins. No two eastern teams are having to travel west to play each other.

I understand what is being proposed. And I am responding to the objection that it includes too many western based bowls. If somebody wants to change that, they should understand that one of the remaining four G5 conferences (the AAC has already been excluded) will not participate.

If any of these games were more than meaningless exhibitions, maybe the MWC could be brought on board. But they aren't. So why should the MWC give up any of their bowl destinations? I suspect they want to see more western sites, not fewer.

But that's just it. The MWC isn't giving up any bowl tie-ins at all. All the bowl games that I used in my suggestion are already games that the MWC is tied into. The point is to fix the meaningless exhibition bowls which currently feature a conference champion G5 vs a mid tier G5 by getting the conferences to agree to send their conference champions to a specific bowl unless that champion is the Access bowl invitee. A G5 conference champion defeating another G5 conference champion in a bowl game would reap way more benefits and be more meaningful than a G5 conference champion whipping up on a barely eligible team like what's currently happening. It would help the team get ranked higher and help the conference's perception compared to the other conferences.

(06-13-2018 08:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  What G5 bowl post season?
Is the winner of the AAC going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Is Boise going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Hell no.

LMAO ECU fans getting snooty about bowl games is a new kind of ironic

(06-13-2018 08:55 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 08:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  What G5 bowl post season?
Is the winner of the AAC going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Is Boise going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Hell no.

Agree, Boise is insulted in the years they have to play a G5.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Boise State fans can be insulted all they want. They're still a G5 school that plays in a G5 conference and no matter how high in the air their nose gets, they always will be

(06-14-2018 07:45 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 07:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 05:22 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 04:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 04:11 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  I made the line up based on the current tie-ins that the 4 conferences already share. It was just coincidence that the 3 bowl games that the MWC already plays with the other 3 G5 conferences are all western-based games. Maybe when the bowls are restructured that could change.

No matter where the games are played, the conferences should still coordinate with each other to match their top teams up.

Coincidence? Really? Do you expect that the owners of these western based bowls would be OK inviting two eastern teams? Or that those eastern teams would want to travel to such remote locations to play each other instead of playing nearer to home where their fans can watch in person?

If you expect that the MWC would sign on to a plan in which only one of their members will get to play in a bowl their fans would travel to, I don't believe you've thought this through.

You are suggesting replacing one set of meaningless exhibition games that make geographic sense with a different set of meaningless games that make no geographic sense. This is a solution in search of a problem.

You clearly don’t understand what’s being proposed here. Re-read the OP. I used each conferences current bowl tie-ins. Nothing is being replaced and those western based bowls are MWC tie-ins. No two eastern teams are having to travel west to play each other.

I understand what is being proposed. And I am responding to the objection that it includes too many western based bowls. If somebody wants to change that, they should understand that one of the remaining four G5 conferences (the AAC has already been excluded) will not participate.

If any of these games were more than meaningless exhibitions, maybe the MWC could be brought on board. But they aren't. So why should the MWC give up any of their bowl destinations? I suspect they want to see more western sites, not fewer.

But that's just it. The MWC isn't giving up any bowl tie-ins at all. All the bowl games that I used in my suggestion are already games that the MWC is tied into. The point is to fix the meaningless exhibition bowls which currently feature a conference champion G5 vs a mid tier G5 by getting the conferences to agree to send their conference champions to a specific bowl unless that champion is the Access bowl invitee. A G5 conference champion defeating another G5 conference champion in a bowl game would reap way more benefits and be more meaningful than a G5 conference champion whipping up on a barely eligible team like what's currently happening. It would help the team get ranked higher and help the conference's perception compared to the other conferences.

First, G5 champions aren't whipping up on barely eligible teams now. The current process does a good job avoiding mismatches in all the bowls, including those between G5 teams.

Second, what benefits does a team get for winning a G5 bowl game? Sun Belt co-champions Appalachian State and Troy won their bowl games (against MAC #1 and CUSA #2) and were not ranked. CUSA #1 FAU beat MAC #2 and were not ranked.

UCF, USF and Boise State all won bowl games against P5 teams (including some "barely eligible" ones) and all were ranked at the end. Memphis lost its bowl against a P5 and was ranked.

The reality is that, if four G5 conference champions were matched against each other, few fans outside those of the participating schools would even remember who won, or what bowl they played in. And poll voters wouldn't be any more impressed than they are now. IMO, you are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist with a solution that wouldn't help if it did.

(06-14-2018 07:47 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 08:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  What G5 bowl post season?
Is the winner of the AAC going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Is Boise going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Hell no.

LMAO ECU fans getting snooty about bowl games is a new kind of ironic

Um....you do know that ECU has been in some pretty nice bowls vs some big name teams right? I know the school you root for just started playing real football....

(06-14-2018 09:03 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 07:47 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 08:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  What G5 bowl post season?
Is the winner of the AAC going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Is Boise going to play a g5 in a bowl game?
Hell no.

LMAO ECU fans getting snooty about bowl games is a new kind of ironic

Um....you do know that ECU has been in some pretty nice bowls vs some big name teams right? I know the school you root for just started playing real football....

LMAO ECU fans giving lectures about "real football" is a new kind of ironic

A top 25 AAC or MWC shouldn’t be playing a MAC/CUSA/SBELT for their bowl. AAC is a notch above MWC who is a notch above the other 3.

Most realistic scenario is getting the 3 CUSA/MAC/SBELT champs + MWC #2 and matching 1v2 and 3v4. MWC will still get its champ a P5 game imo.

(06-14-2018 03:14 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  A top 25 AAC or MWC shouldn’t be playing a MAC/CUSA/SBELT for their bowl. AAC is a notch above MWC who is a notch above the other 3.

The MWC only has one tie-in with a P-5 and it's losing that tie-in when the bowls are restructured. After that, they could very well be sending their champ to the Arizona Bowl to play the #4 Sun Belt school assuming the Sun Belt still keeps that bowl.

(06-14-2018 03:14 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  A top 25 AAC or MWC shouldn’t be playing a MAC/CUSA/SBELT for their bowl. AAC is a notch above MWC who is a notch above the other 3.

If this is true (and I'm not saying it is), then converse is also true. A ranked MAC team also shouldn't be stuck playing an AAC or MWC team.

If all conferences were to all insist that their ranked teams are too good to play a G5 team in a bowl game, then this just won't work.

A ranked Marshall beat Brigham Young in 1999. A ranked Miami beat Louisville in 2003. Ranked teams make for good bowl games, no matter which conference they come from.

(06-14-2018 03:14 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  A top 25 AAC or MWC shouldn’t be playing a MAC/CUSA/SBELT for their bowl. AAC is a notch above MWC who is a notch above the other 3.

What you forget is the MWC has a geographic limitation so they don't have much leverage if they want to play with the other G5 conferences.

(06-12-2018 06:17 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  I like the g5 bowl thing
Bring back the Bluebonnet bowl as a g5 champions bowl
It was always played at Rice stadium, seats over 50k

It was played in the Astro Dome for many years. Then called the Astro Bluebonnet Bowl

https://bill37mccurdy.com/tag/bluebonnet-bowl-history/

Sent from my XT1635-01 using CSNbbs mobile app