The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(11-28-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(11-25-2018 09:55 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 04:51 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 04:51 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 04:41 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  Because they bring a hell of a lot more eyeballs.

Oklahoma is just as big a national brand as OSU is.

No it's not.

Correct. Particularly when you factor in the breadth of their alumni base. I guarantee you that there were packed OSU bars in every big city from Miami to Seattle and LA to Boston yesterday.

Now, that being said, I really want OSU to get left out because--as I've stated previously--the way to get an expanded playoff with (hopefully) a G5 auto-bid isn't for the G5 to get left out. It's for the Big Ten to get left out, and this will be the second year in a row that their champ will have been passed over. Eventually, Delaney is going to have to worry less about protecting the Rose Bowl and more about protecting his schools, and when that happens, we'll get change.

Or the "p" conferences take their ball and go home. They form their own division and have their own tournament. Either way, it's up to them.

Unfortunately, that's right. There is no anti-trust or magic lawsuit that can simply stop them from associating with whom they choose to associate with. Now, if they use their market power and relationships to actively interfere with and stifle the G5s ability to set up their own playoff, that's collusion and anti-trust. But simply having a product that's not as valuable and has a fraction of the market as the other guy doesn't trigger an anti-trust remedy.

Now, I don't think they'll do that. I think they still need us for unbalanced schedules. They still need us for basketball and olympic sports. And, I think they'll want to avoid some of the political headaches in some state legislatures that their breaking off would inevitably cause. Maybe I'm hopelessly optimistic, but I really think they'll carve off one auto-bid in an expanded playoff.

(11-28-2018 09:16 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(11-25-2018 09:55 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 04:51 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 04:51 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  Oklahoma is just as big a national brand as OSU is.

No it's not.

Correct. Particularly when you factor in the breadth of their alumni base. I guarantee you that there were packed OSU bars in every big city from Miami to Seattle and LA to Boston yesterday.

Now, that being said, I really want OSU to get left out because--as I've stated previously--the way to get an expanded playoff with (hopefully) a G5 auto-bid isn't for the G5 to get left out. It's for the Big Ten to get left out, and this will be the second year in a row that their champ will have been passed over. Eventually, Delaney is going to have to worry less about protecting the Rose Bowl and more about protecting his schools, and when that happens, we'll get change.

Or the "p" conferences take their ball and go home. They form their own division and have their own tournament. Either way, it's up to them.

Unfortunately, that's right. There is no anti-trust or magic lawsuit that can simply stop them from associating with whom they choose to associate with. Now, if they use their market power and relationships to actively interfere with and stifle the G5s ability to set up their own playoff, that's collusion and anti-trust. But simply having a product that's not as valuable and has a fraction of the market as the other guy doesn't trigger an anti-trust remedy.

Now, I don't think they'll do that. I think they still need us for unbalanced schedules. They still need us for basketball and olympic sports. And, I think they'll want to avoid some of the political headaches in some state legislatures that their breaking off would inevitably cause. Maybe I'm hopelessly optimistic, but I really think they'll carve off one auto-bid in an expanded playoff.

I am thinking out loud, not advocating this at all. What if the American and G5 threatened to break off? If they need us for scheduling and olympic sports, would this cause them a headache? Maybe rethink some of their positioning?

I think what makes the most sense is expanding the Fball playoff to 8 teams - 6 conf champions and 2 at large. Maybe make the first round the conf CH weekend. I am sure no conf wants to give up the Conf CH money, however a high seed hosting in their own stadium could bring some of that money back. The second and CH round would be as normal around the 31st and Jan as it is now. Conf would still have the bowl game slate as well.

(11-29-2018 12:38 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 09:16 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(11-25-2018 09:55 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 04:51 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  No it's not.

Correct. Particularly when you factor in the breadth of their alumni base. I guarantee you that there were packed OSU bars in every big city from Miami to Seattle and LA to Boston yesterday.

Now, that being said, I really want OSU to get left out because--as I've stated previously--the way to get an expanded playoff with (hopefully) a G5 auto-bid isn't for the G5 to get left out. It's for the Big Ten to get left out, and this will be the second year in a row that their champ will have been passed over. Eventually, Delaney is going to have to worry less about protecting the Rose Bowl and more about protecting his schools, and when that happens, we'll get change.

Or the "p" conferences take their ball and go home. They form their own division and have their own tournament. Either way, it's up to them.

Unfortunately, that's right. There is no anti-trust or magic lawsuit that can simply stop them from associating with whom they choose to associate with. Now, if they use their market power and relationships to actively interfere with and stifle the G5s ability to set up their own playoff, that's collusion and anti-trust. But simply having a product that's not as valuable and has a fraction of the market as the other guy doesn't trigger an anti-trust remedy.

Now, I don't think they'll do that. I think they still need us for unbalanced schedules. They still need us for basketball and olympic sports. And, I think they'll want to avoid some of the political headaches in some state legislatures that their breaking off would inevitably cause. Maybe I'm hopelessly optimistic, but I really think they'll carve off one auto-bid in an expanded playoff.

I am thinking out loud, not advocating this at all. What if the American and G5 threatened to break off? If they need us for scheduling and olympic sports, would this cause them a headache? Maybe rethink some of their positioning?

I think what makes the most sense is expanding the Fball playoff to 8 teams - 6 conf champions and 2 at large. Maybe make the first round the conf CH weekend. I am sure no conf wants to give up the Conf CH money, however a high seed hosting in their own stadium could bring some of that money back. The second and CH round would be as normal around the 31st and Jan as it is now. Conf would still have the bowl game slate as well.

Bolded, there actually is some logic in this.

I asked someone in athletics several years ago about the possibility of the MAC dropping back to FCS someday given the conference members' resource limitations. He said it would never happen--the Big Ten needed the MAC to supply pre-conference guarantee games. If you think about that, a "P5 only world" would mean tremendous demand for the dregs such as Rutgers or Illinois to fill everyone else's pre-conference schedules coast to coast! That, and P5 schools load up their Olympic sports schedules with local and regional G5 competition, partly to save on travel costs.

So it would be a bold stroke for the G5 to say we're taking our bat and glove and leaving. It could force some movement but given disparity in the power structure of college athletics it's not without risk.

(11-29-2018 12:38 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 09:16 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 08:31 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(11-25-2018 09:55 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(11-24-2018 04:51 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  No it's not.

Correct. Particularly when you factor in the breadth of their alumni base. I guarantee you that there were packed OSU bars in every big city from Miami to Seattle and LA to Boston yesterday.

Now, that being said, I really want OSU to get left out because--as I've stated previously--the way to get an expanded playoff with (hopefully) a G5 auto-bid isn't for the G5 to get left out. It's for the Big Ten to get left out, and this will be the second year in a row that their champ will have been passed over. Eventually, Delaney is going to have to worry less about protecting the Rose Bowl and more about protecting his schools, and when that happens, we'll get change.

Or the "p" conferences take their ball and go home. They form their own division and have their own tournament. Either way, it's up to them.

Unfortunately, that's right. There is no anti-trust or magic lawsuit that can simply stop them from associating with whom they choose to associate with. Now, if they use their market power and relationships to actively interfere with and stifle the G5s ability to set up their own playoff, that's collusion and anti-trust. But simply having a product that's not as valuable and has a fraction of the market as the other guy doesn't trigger an anti-trust remedy.

Now, I don't think they'll do that. I think they still need us for unbalanced schedules. They still need us for basketball and olympic sports. And, I think they'll want to avoid some of the political headaches in some state legislatures that their breaking off would inevitably cause. Maybe I'm hopelessly optimistic, but I really think they'll carve off one auto-bid in an expanded playoff.

I am thinking out loud, not advocating this at all. What if the American and G5 threatened to break off? If they need us for scheduling and olympic sports, would this cause them a headache? Maybe rethink some of their positioning?

I think what makes the most sense is expanding the Fball playoff to 8 teams - 6 conf champions and 2 at large. Maybe make the first round the conf CH weekend. I am sure no conf wants to give up the Conf CH money, however a high seed hosting in their own stadium could bring some of that money back. The second and CH round would be as normal around the 31st and Jan as it is now. Conf would still have the bowl game slate as well.

AAC wouldn't get/deserve an auto bid. I've been saying for a long time now. 5 P5 champions, 1 G5 wild card, 2 wild cards with no limitations. I think that would make everyone pretty happy. I don't believe you need 16. 8 is the number.

(11-29-2018 02:33 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  AAC wouldn't get/deserve an auto bid. I've been saying for a long time now. 5 P5 champions, 1 G5 wild card, 2 wild cards with no limitations. I think that would make everyone pretty happy. I don't believe you need 16. 8 is the number.

I'd make one alteration to this. The 6 highest ranked conference champions regardless of conference and two at large bids.

(11-29-2018 02:39 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 02:33 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  AAC wouldn't get/deserve an auto bid. I've been saying for a long time now. 5 P5 champions, 1 G5 wild card, 2 wild cards with no limitations. I think that would make everyone pretty happy. I don't believe you need 16. 8 is the number.

I'd make one alteration to this. The 6 highest ranked conference champions regardless of conference and two at large bids.

Rankings leave room for corruption or Bias.

(11-29-2018 02:43 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 02:39 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 02:33 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  AAC wouldn't get/deserve an auto bid. I've been saying for a long time now. 5 P5 champions, 1 G5 wild card, 2 wild cards with no limitations. I think that would make everyone pretty happy. I don't believe you need 16. 8 is the number.

I'd make one alteration to this. The 6 highest ranked conference champions regardless of conference and two at large bids.

Rankings leave room for corruption or Bias.

Of course they do. You'll never take bias out unless you do that by computer ranking (which I'm not opposed to if you do a statistically valid strength of record metric like Resume S&P). I like the idea that no conference champ is guaranteed a spot. Say this year Boise and UCF both were unbeaten and Northwestern somehow stole the Big 10 title. The auto bids would include Boise and UCF but not Northwestern.

Not sure I see them giving the G5 an auto bid. Mark's proposal seems like the only likely option.

(11-29-2018 02:59 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Not sure I see them giving the G5 an auto bid. Mark's proposal seems like the only likely option.

My proposal gives the G5 an auto bid... at least one. It's a better deal for the G5.

My way takes everyone's arguments away. That's the point. It's hard to poke holes in. It gives you a true national champion.

Whoops, I misread your post. Nevermind.

(11-29-2018 03:03 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 02:59 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Not sure I see them giving the G5 an auto bid. Mark's proposal seems like the only likely option.

My proposal gives the G5 an auto bid... at least one. It's a better deal for the G5.

I think you need to have it written as top six conference champions. I also propose that conference champions 7 through 10 play each other in champions bowl games. Each conference gets a rep on the committee.

I just want to see Georgia, tO$U, and Oklahoma all lose this weekend in blowouts. The first three spots( Alabama, Clemson and ND) are already decided regardless of what happens. The way they will justify how to put a 2 loss team in with an undefeated school still sitting out there will be hilarious.

(11-29-2018 03:05 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  My way takes everyone's arguments away. That's the point. It's hard to poke holes in. It gives you a true national champion.

How does it take everyone's argument away? The G5 wildcard is a huge argument.

Why would yours give a truer national champion than what I suggested?

Both have 2 wild cards with no limitations.
Both would include a G5 representative among the conference champions (in mine it's theoretically possible for more than 1, though probably unlikely nearly every year).

(11-29-2018 03:11 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 03:03 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 02:59 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Not sure I see them giving the G5 an auto bid. Mark's proposal seems like the only likely option.

My proposal gives the G5 an auto bid... at least one. It's a better deal for the G5.

I think you need to have it written as top six conference champions. I also propose that conference champions 7 through 10 play each other in champions bowl games. Each conference gets a rep on the committee.

That's exactly what I suggested. 6 highest ranked conference champions regardless of conference and 2 wild cards.

You are looking at it from a G5 perspective. 95% of the population think the P5 have the best that the NCAA has to offer. As soon as one of those leagues miss out, the stake holders lose their minds. Then we are redoing the process again. Also taking as much subjectivity out of selections is better for all that are involved. I really don't like Ana-Conda-Lisa-Rice picking my teams for me.

(11-29-2018 03:26 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  You are looking at it from a G5 perspective. 95% of the population think the P5 have the best that the NCAA has to offer. As soon as one of those leagues miss out, the stake holders lose their minds. Then we are redoing the process again. Also taking as much subjectivity out of selections is better for all that are involved. I really don't like Ana-Conda-Lisa-Rice picking my teams for me.

I'm looking at if from a best team perspective. If you want a true champion then make the same rules apply to everyone. If some crappy division champ steals a conference title (say Pitt beats Clemson this week), why should they go over a better conference champ from another conference? The committee currently claims to work from the proposition that it is about best teams and not conferences.... no need to give preferential treatment to any conferences. It will work out the same most years, but I think have the best 6 conference champs regardless of conference would be a huge feature for a true playoff.

(11-29-2018 03:28 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 03:26 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  You are looking at it from a G5 perspective. 95% of the population think the P5 have the best that the NCAA has to offer. As soon as one of those leagues miss out, the stake holders lose their minds. Then we are redoing the process again. Also taking as much subjectivity out of selections is better for all that are involved. I really don't like Ana-Conda-Lisa-Rice picking my teams for me.

I'm looking at if from a best team perspective. If you want a true champion then make the same rules apply to everyone. If some crappy division champ steals a conference title (say Pitt beats Clemson this week), why should they go over a better conference champ from another conference? The committee currently claims to work from the proposition that it is about best teams and not conferences.... no need to give preferential treatment to any conferences. It will work out the same most years, but I think have the best 6 conference champs regardless of conference would be a huge feature for a true playoff.

Which is why 16 teams, 10 autobids and six at-larges. Equal rep on the committee. A combination or merit and equality based model in terms of revenue. Every other major does something close to this.

(11-29-2018 03:44 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 03:28 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 03:26 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  You are looking at it from a G5 perspective. 95% of the population think the P5 have the best that the NCAA has to offer. As soon as one of those leagues miss out, the stake holders lose their minds. Then we are redoing the process again. Also taking as much subjectivity out of selections is better for all that are involved. I really don't like Ana-Conda-Lisa-Rice picking my teams for me.

I'm looking at if from a best team perspective. If you want a true champion then make the same rules apply to everyone. If some crappy division champ steals a conference title (say Pitt beats Clemson this week), why should they go over a better conference champ from another conference? The committee currently claims to work from the proposition that it is about best teams and not conferences.... no need to give preferential treatment to any conferences. It will work out the same most years, but I think have the best 6 conference champs regardless of conference would be a huge feature for a true playoff.

Which is why 16 teams, 10 autobids and six at-larges. Equal rep on the committee. A combination or merit and equality based model in terms of revenue. Every other major does something close to this.

That would be awesome.

DII and DIII have true playoffs and true champions; it would be just as easy to do it for D1.

Think of how boring the NCAA Basketball tournament would be without the Cinderella(s), the upsets (think of 12 seeds have upended 5 seeds, etc).

University Academia stand for for inclusion/diversity; University Athletics stand for for exclusion. And it all comes down to $$$$