Many of the programs in the B4 (B for bottom) were not long ago part of the FCS, which had an inclusive championship competition. They made a conscious choice that they did not want to be part of that arrangement. They made that choice knowing that they weren't likely to join the party of the richer schools of the FBS, and would never be competing for anything that the football public would consider a championship outside of their own conference championships.

Some in this thread seem to assume that those programs, and the poorer conferences that took them in, now want to be part of a third DI subdivision, between FCS and FBS. And maybe that's not a bad thing for college football. They could be joined by a few of the stronger FCS conferences that help finance themselves by replacing the weaker FCS schools as the only allowable cannon fodder for the P5 (or 6 if you prefer) buy games. You could simply have DI-A, DI-AA and DI-AAA and let everyone choose whether they prefer a post season of bowl exhibitions or a one-and-done tournament.

(06-18-2018 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  Many of the programs in the B4 (B for bottom) were not long ago part of the FCS, which had an inclusive championship competition. They made a conscious choice that they did not want to be part of that arrangement. They made that choice knowing that they weren't likely to join the party of the richer schools of the FBS, and would never be competing for anything that the football public would consider a championship outside of their own conference championships.

Some in this thread seem to assume that those programs, and the poorer conferences that took them in, now want to be part of a third DI subdivision, between FCS and FBS. And maybe that's not a bad thing for college football. They could be joined by a few of the stronger FCS conferences that help finance themselves by replacing the weaker FCS schools as the only allowable cannon fodder for the P5 (or 6 if you prefer) buy games. You could simply have DI-A, DI-AA and DI-AAA and let everyone choose whether they prefer a post season of bowl exhibitions or a one-and-done tournament.

Where would that be? I havent seen anything remotely similar to what you are describing discussed in this thread. The bowls being described are all being played. The OP simply is suggesting a system to match the top teams from one conference against the top teams in another. Frankly, thats not a horrible idea. The SDSU vs Houston Las Vegas Bowl did over 3 million viewers. That game wasnt even champ on champ. That tells me that these kind of games are of interest to viewers. The matchups (as well as bowl lineups) are about to change anyway as bowl negotiations for the next bowl cycle are literally underway right now---so the status quo you prefer is could very well not be available anyway.

(06-14-2018 03:38 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(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.

Just stop. You and I both know that this will never happen.

(06-14-2018 06:55 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(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.

How often has the MAC finished with a ranked team (I don't know the answer). I know NIU was ranked a few years ago heading into the bowl season...who else.

(06-18-2018 10:51 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 06:55 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(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.

How often has the MAC finished with a ranked team (I don't know the answer). I know NIU was ranked a few years ago heading into the bowl season...who else.

2003 Miami (O) (11), Bowling Green (24)
2008 Ball State (22)
2012 Kent St (17), Northern Illinois (21)
2013 Northern Illinois (23)
2016 Western Michigan (15)

These were based on the final BCS/CFP rankings since 2003. That may not seem like a lot, but it's seven more than the combined total from teams currently in CUSA and Sun Belt.

(06-18-2018 11:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 10:51 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 06:55 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(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.

How often has the MAC finished with a ranked team (I don't know the answer). I know NIU was ranked a few years ago heading into the bowl season...who else.

2003 Miami (O) (11), Bowling Green (24)
2008 Ball State (22)
2012 Kent St (17), Northern Illinois (21)
2013 Northern Illinois (23)
2016 Western Michigan (15)

These were based on the final BCS/CFP rankings since 2003. That may not seem like a lot, but it's seven more than the combined total from teams currently in CUSA and Sun Belt.

Thanks for the info. Good info and a lot more than the Sun Belt and CUSA, you are correct.

(06-18-2018 12:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 10:51 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 06:55 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(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.

How often has the MAC finished with a ranked team (I don't know the answer). I know NIU was ranked a few years ago heading into the bowl season...who else.

2003 Miami (O) (11), Bowling Green (24)
2008 Ball State (22)
2012 Kent St (17), Northern Illinois (21)
2013 Northern Illinois (23)
2016 Western Michigan (15)

These were based on the final BCS/CFP rankings since 2003. That may not seem like a lot, but it's seven more than the combined total from teams currently in CUSA and Sun Belt.

Thanks for the info. Good info and a lot more than the Sun Belt and CUSA, you are correct.

My bad. I missed Southern Miss who finished #21 in 2011.

Also during that period, teams who are now in the MWC were ranked 17 times, and teams from the AAC 14 times. BYU was ranked 4 times, the last in 2009. That's a total of 43 top 25 finishes for teams not currently P5.

Finishes by school:
Boise......11
BYU.........4
UCF..........3
Cincy........3
Houston....2
Temple.....2
Hawaii......2
NIU..........2
USF..........1
UConn......1
Memphis...1
Navy.........1
Fresno......1
Nevada.....1
San Jose...1
Utah St.....1
Miami.......1
BGSU.......1
Ball St......1
Kent St.....1
WMU........1
So Miss.....1

(06-18-2018 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 12:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 10:51 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 06:55 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  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.

How often has the MAC finished with a ranked team (I don't know the answer). I know NIU was ranked a few years ago heading into the bowl season...who else.

2003 Miami (O) (11), Bowling Green (24)
2008 Ball State (22)
2012 Kent St (17), Northern Illinois (21)
2013 Northern Illinois (23)
2016 Western Michigan (15)

These were based on the final BCS/CFP rankings since 2003. That may not seem like a lot, but it's seven more than the combined total from teams currently in CUSA and Sun Belt.

Thanks for the info. Good info and a lot more than the Sun Belt and CUSA, you are correct.

My bad. I missed Southern Miss who finished #21 in 2011.

Also during that period, teams who are now in the MWC were ranked 17 times, and teams from the AAC 14 times. BYU was ranked 4 times, the last in 2009. That's a total of 43 top 25 finishes for teams not currently P5.

Finishes by school:
USF..........1

Uhhh...USF has finished ranked the past 2 seasons, finishing 11-2 in 2016, and 10-2 in 2017. USF has been ranked in 20 straight AP polls, so obviously finished ranked both seasons in both the AP and Coaches polls. There is no CFP rankings, or before that, BCS rankings after the bowl games. To end the season after the bowls, USF was ranked in 2016 and 2017.

(06-18-2018 01:06 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 12:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 10:51 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  How often has the MAC finished with a ranked team (I don't know the answer). I know NIU was ranked a few years ago heading into the bowl season...who else.

2003 Miami (O) (11), Bowling Green (24)
2008 Ball State (22)
2012 Kent St (17), Northern Illinois (21)
2013 Northern Illinois (23)
2016 Western Michigan (15)

These were based on the final BCS/CFP rankings since 2003. That may not seem like a lot, but it's seven more than the combined total from teams currently in CUSA and Sun Belt.

Thanks for the info. Good info and a lot more than the Sun Belt and CUSA, you are correct.

My bad. I missed Southern Miss who finished #21 in 2011.

Also during that period, teams who are now in the MWC were ranked 17 times, and teams from the AAC 14 times. BYU was ranked 4 times, the last in 2009. That's a total of 43 top 25 finishes for teams not currently P5.

Finishes by school:
USF..........1

Uhhh...USF has finished ranked the past 2 seasons, finishing 11-2 in 2016, and 10-2 in 2017. USF has been ranked in 20 straight AP polls, so obviously finished ranked both seasons in both the AP and Coaches polls. There is no CFP rankings, or before that, BCS rankings after the bowl games. To end the season after the bowls, USF was ranked in 2016 and 2017.

Those rankings were from the final CFP or BCS ranking, which took place before bowl selections. Since the thread had to do with pairing teams in bowl games, it seemed to make more sense to use the rankings as they were at the time those decisions were made. It's possible teams might have been ranked in either the AP or Coaches' polls before the bowls, but the pairings were generally set based on the CFP ranking.

I doubt there would be much difference overall if you took post-bowl rankings, since the historical average has been around 3 non-P5s in the Top 25 per year. Chances are a G5 team that moves up after the bowls would displace a G5 that lost its bowl.

The bigger point here, though, is that the bottom 3 G5 conferences, who presumably would be the ones most interested in pairing their champs, aren't ranked very often.

(06-18-2018 10:49 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 03:38 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(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.

Just stop. You and I both know that this will never happen.

Sorry to rain on your self-superior parade:

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...rs-stadium

Quote:McMurphy reports the MWC’s fallback bowl could be the damn Arizona Bowl in Tucson, a thing that has existed for all of three years and has barely even been on TV so far. That’d be a significant step down in just about every way, including financially — the Vegas means seven figures for the MWC, while the Arizona basically pays in the low sixes. Imagine if Boise State barely missed out on making the New Year’s Six and fell from the Fiesta Bowl all the way to the state of Arizona’s third-most-prestigious bowl.

So basically, like just about everything in college football, this move would be good for everybody except the non-powers.

(06-18-2018 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  Many of the programs in the B4 (B for bottom) were not long ago part of the FCS, which had an inclusive championship competition.

This is not true for the Mid-American, the American Athletic, or the Mountain West. In other words, it is not true for most of the G5.

(06-18-2018 09:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  Many of the programs in the B4 (B for bottom) were not long ago part of the FCS, which had an inclusive championship competition. They made a conscious choice that they did not want to be part of that arrangement. They made that choice knowing that they weren't likely to join the party of the richer schools of the FBS, and would never be competing for anything that the football public would consider a championship outside of their own conference championships.

Some in this thread seem to assume that those programs, and the poorer conferences that took them in, now want to be part of a third DI subdivision, between FCS and FBS. And maybe that's not a bad thing for college football. They could be joined by a few of the stronger FCS conferences that help finance themselves by replacing the weaker FCS schools as the only allowable cannon fodder for the P5 (or 6 if you prefer) buy games. You could simply have DI-A, DI-AA and DI-AAA and let everyone choose whether they prefer a post season of bowl exhibitions or a one-and-done tournament.

Where would that be? I havent seen anything remotely similar to what you are describing discussed in this thread. The bowls being described are all being played. The OP simply is suggesting a system to match the top teams from one conference against the top teams in another. Frankly, thats not a horrible idea. The SDSU vs Houston Las Vegas Bowl did over 3 million viewers. That game wasnt even champ on champ. That tells me that these kind of games are of interest to viewers. The matchups (as well as bowl lineups) are about to change anyway as bowl negotiations for the next bowl cycle are literally underway right now---so the status quo you prefer is could very well not be available anyway.

THANK. YOU.

Ken, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension mate.

(06-18-2018 01:46 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 10:49 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 03:38 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(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.

Just stop. You and I both know that this will never happen.

Sorry to rain on your self-superior parade:

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...rs-stadium

Quote:McMurphy reports the MWC’s fallback bowl could be the damn Arizona Bowl in Tucson, a thing that has existed for all of three years and has barely even been on TV so far. That’d be a significant step down in just about every way, including financially — the Vegas means seven figures for the MWC, while the Arizona basically pays in the low sixes. Imagine if Boise State barely missed out on making the New Year’s Six and fell from the Fiesta Bowl all the way to the state of Arizona’s third-most-prestigious bowl.

So basically, like just about everything in college football, this move would be good for everybody except the non-powers.

Where does it state that this bowl would be MWC #1 vs. Sun Belt #4. I admit the MWC might play there, but if you think the MWC #1 will be playing the Sun Belt #4 in any bowl to include this one...well, you are in need of some help.

THAT was my point. Not that the MWC might not be in this bowl.

(06-18-2018 01:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 01:06 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 12:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  2003 Miami (O) (11), Bowling Green (24)
2008 Ball State (22)
2012 Kent St (17), Northern Illinois (21)
2013 Northern Illinois (23)
2016 Western Michigan (15)

These were based on the final BCS/CFP rankings since 2003. That may not seem like a lot, but it's seven more than the combined total from teams currently in CUSA and Sun Belt.

Thanks for the info. Good info and a lot more than the Sun Belt and CUSA, you are correct.

My bad. I missed Southern Miss who finished #21 in 2011.

Also during that period, teams who are now in the MWC were ranked 17 times, and teams from the AAC 14 times. BYU was ranked 4 times, the last in 2009. That's a total of 43 top 25 finishes for teams not currently P5.

Finishes by school:
USF..........1

Uhhh...USF has finished ranked the past 2 seasons, finishing 11-2 in 2016, and 10-2 in 2017. USF has been ranked in 20 straight AP polls, so obviously finished ranked both seasons in both the AP and Coaches polls. There is no CFP rankings, or before that, BCS rankings after the bowl games. To end the season after the bowls, USF was ranked in 2016 and 2017.

Those rankings were from the final CFP or BCS ranking, which took place before bowl selections. Since the thread had to do with pairing teams in bowl games, it seemed to make more sense to use the rankings as they were at the time those decisions were made. It's possible teams might have been ranked in either the AP or Coaches' polls before the bowls, but the pairings were generally set based on the CFP ranking.

I doubt there would be much difference overall if you took post-bowl rankings, since the historical average has been around 3 non-P5s in the Top 25 per year. Chances are a G5 team that moves up after the bowls would displace a G5 that lost its bowl.

The bigger point here, though, is that the bottom 3 G5 conferences, who presumably would be the ones most interested in pairing their champs, aren't ranked very often.

Fair enough.

(06-18-2018 02:00 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 01:46 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 10:49 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 03:38 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(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.

Just stop. You and I both know that this will never happen.

Sorry to rain on your self-superior parade:

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...rs-stadium

Quote:McMurphy reports the MWC’s fallback bowl could be the damn Arizona Bowl in Tucson, a thing that has existed for all of three years and has barely even been on TV so far. That’d be a significant step down in just about every way, including financially — the Vegas means seven figures for the MWC, while the Arizona basically pays in the low sixes. Imagine if Boise State barely missed out on making the New Year’s Six and fell from the Fiesta Bowl all the way to the state of Arizona’s third-most-prestigious bowl.

So basically, like just about everything in college football, this move would be good for everybody except the non-powers.

Where does it state that this bowl would be MWC #1 vs. Sun Belt #4. I admit the MWC might play there, but if you think the MWC #1 will be playing the Sun Belt #4 in any bowl to include this one...well, you are in need of some help.

THAT was my point. Not that the MWC might not be in this bowl.

Based on the inference from the article that the MWC might have to send its champ to the Arizona Bowl and the fact that the Arizona Bowl gets 4th pick of Sun Belt teams after the NOLA, Mobile, and Camellia Bowls, I said that the MWC "COULD very well be sending their champ to the Arizona Bowl to play the #4 Sun Belt school" the way the bowl games are currently set up which I agreed was ludicrous and shouldn't happen hence the champ v champ idea.

Regardless, the Sun Belt is likely to drop the Arizona Bowl in favor of the new Myrtle Beach Bowl that's within the conference footprint, so rest assured the MWC champ will probably just play some middling AAC school, or if they're lucky, a barely eligible B12 team.

(06-18-2018 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 12:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 11:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 10:51 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 06:55 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  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.

How often has the MAC finished with a ranked team (I don't know the answer). I know NIU was ranked a few years ago heading into the bowl season...who else.

2003 Miami (O) (11), Bowling Green (24)
2008 Ball State (22)
2012 Kent St (17), Northern Illinois (21)
2013 Northern Illinois (23)
2016 Western Michigan (15)

These were based on the final BCS/CFP rankings since 2003. That may not seem like a lot, but it's seven more than the combined total from teams currently in CUSA and Sun Belt.

Thanks for the info. Good info and a lot more than the Sun Belt and CUSA, you are correct.

My bad. I missed Southern Miss who finished #21 in 2011.

Also during that period, teams who are now in the MWC were ranked 17 times, and teams from the AAC 14 times. BYU was ranked 4 times, the last in 2009. That's a total of 43 top 25 finishes for teams not currently P5.

Finishes by school:
Boise......11
BYU.........4
UCF..........3
Cincy........3
Houston....2
Temple.....2
Hawaii......2
NIU..........2
USF..........1
UConn......1
Memphis...1
Navy.........1
Fresno......1
Nevada.....1
San Jose...1
Utah St.....1
Miami.......1
BGSU.......1
Ball St......1
Kent St.....1
WMU........1
So Miss.....1

Add in TCU and Utah, the MWC was something amazing.

(06-18-2018 01:55 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  Many of the programs in the B4 (B for bottom) were not long ago part of the FCS, which had an inclusive championship competition.

This is not true for the Mid-American, the American Athletic, or the Mountain West. In other words, it is not true for most of the G5.

I'd say 20 years and you've been at the top level for a while.

Buffalo, Akron, UCF, USF, Boise, Nevada, MTSU, Troy are just crossing that threshold where you can't really look at them as call ups anymore.

(06-19-2018 06:59 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 01:55 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  Many of the programs in the B4 (B for bottom) were not long ago part of the FCS, which had an inclusive championship competition.

This is not true for the Mid-American, the American Athletic, or the Mountain West. In other words, it is not true for most of the G5.

I'd say 20 years and you've been at the top level for a while.

Buffalo, Akron, UCF, USF, Boise, Nevada, MTSU, Troy are just crossing that threshold where you can't really look at them as call ups anymore.

At some point i hope fans start thinking differently than this for all these predictive call up situations. college football is not what it used to be and the model for moving forward is changing rapidly. to assume the same method of call ups will be used moving forward is short sighted at best. distant past performance is more of the cherry on top, not the main meal. for example i can easily see a school like Georgia state being in considerations, based on what they are actively doing now and what that can turn into in the next 4 to 5 years.

(06-19-2018 06:59 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 01:55 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  Many of the programs in the B4 (B for bottom) were not long ago part of the FCS, which had an inclusive championship competition.

This is not true for the Mid-American, the American Athletic, or the Mountain West. In other words, it is not true for most of the G5.

I'd say 20 years and you've been at the top level for a while.

Buffalo, Akron, UCF, USF, Boise, Nevada, MTSU, Troy are just crossing that threshold where you can't really look at them as call ups anymore.

I think that depends on whose lens you are looking at it through. For the P5, they might consider if you've been at the "top" level for 50 years. And I don't think they view all of today's FBS as the "top" level. At the time of the FBS split, the MAC was essentially relegated, but clawed their way back in through the threat of litigation. They weren't viewed (by outsiders) as "top" level 40 years ago, and today they are largely the same as they were 40 years ago.

(06-19-2018 07:49 AM)balanced_view Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 06:59 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 01:55 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  Many of the programs in the B4 (B for bottom) were not long ago part of the FCS, which had an inclusive championship competition.

This is not true for the Mid-American, the American Athletic, or the Mountain West. In other words, it is not true for most of the G5.

I'd say 20 years and you've been at the top level for a while.

Buffalo, Akron, UCF, USF, Boise, Nevada, MTSU, Troy are just crossing that threshold where you can't really look at them as call ups anymore.

At some point i hope fans start thinking differently than this for all these predictive call up situations. college football is not what it used to be and the model for moving forward is changing rapidly. to assume the same method of call ups will be used moving forward is short sighted at best. distant past performance is more of the cherry on top, not the main meal. for example i can easily see a school like Georgia state being in considerations, based on what they are actively doing now and what that can turn into in the next 4 to 5 years.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat or some such thing.

People continue to assume just pulling someone in to fix holes is the norm.

History says that when the marketplace gets out of balance sooner or later people blow up what they have and start over.