(12-06-2018 11:33 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 12:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 08:50 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 04:01 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I would rather go toe to toe with the #1 team at their house than go for this. I can't speak for the rest of the G's, but our conference produced a #8 team, our highest pre-playoff ranking yet, and higher than the highest rated PAC-12 team. Each year brings more progress.

If the G5 were to break off like you suggest, then we'll ultimately stop winning recruiting battles against our P5 rivals. THAT will make the gap bigger, rather than sticking around and taking our lumps.

Also, FWIW, I'm not on board for a G5 auto-bid. We should have to get a team in on our merits. With that being said, that goes for the P5 too. No conferences should get auto-bids. Conference championships can help your case, like now, but it's not the only criteria.

UCF got to #8 with a garbage schedule. If the playoff were to go to 8, the AAC would field a team in it every few years.

Houston plays Oklahoma and Washington State next year, Cincy plays Ohio State and UCLA, UCF plays Stanford and Pitt, and USF plays Wisconsin and Georgia. We're certainly not favored in those games, but any team that wins out with them will be tough to keep out.

You pretty much speak for most G5 fans and their respective school presidents. Your about recruiting is spot on and greatly overlooked by many G5 playoff advocates.

I will disagree though regarding autobids. It will make the P5 more amenable to the idea of an expanded CFP if they know their are built in monetary guarantees in the new system. Also, you reduce the utility of the selection committee to ranking teams and selecting the two wild cards.

I like that. Im all for the committee being responsible for placing fewer teams into the playoff bracket. I prefer the vast majority of the playoff bracket be filled as a direct result of action that plays out on the field in full view of every fan in the nation.

Then you must not like the NCAA tournament very much, as the majority of its slots are filled by a selection committee.

And yet what makes it great are the Cinderella stories like UMBC taking down Virginia. If only the football folks could see this and let every team control their own destiny...

USFFan

Thing is, the NCAA tournament used to consist primarily of conference champs, but that regime ended more than 40 years ago.

The only reason the NCAA tournament allows in all conference champs is because it also allows for half of the B1G or ACC to get in an as well.

So in order to have a football playoff that is analogous to March Madness, and tossing out the FCS teams that are not part of the FBS football structure, to have a football playoff that includes all of the G5 champs, the playoffs would have to be about 42 teams large. That would be the same thing, all conference champs but also the big conferences can put 5-6 teams in to the football playoffs the way they can in hoops.

And truthfully, that's the only fair way to give every FBS team a path by including all conference champs, as the 5th or 6th place SEC team is often better than a given G5 champ.

What is a total non-starter, from a money or fairness perspective, is to have say an 8 or 16 or even 24 team playoff with all G5 champs but at most two or so teams from a P5 league.

(12-06-2018 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 12:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 08:50 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 04:01 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 02:30 AM)micahandme Wrote:  As my G5 friends consider another year on the outside looking in (sorry UCF) and another year of disappointing bowl matchups, I'll throw this beautiful system out there again. Some of your commissioners are seeing the power in this. Get on board...before you are further left behind. (Are you really just going to dream of 2026 when you MIGHT get an auto-bid to the new 8-team playoff system? Have fun playing a road game against the #1 team in the country every year!!!!)

I would rather go toe to toe with the #1 team at their house than go for this. I can't speak for the rest of the G's, but our conference produced a #8 team, our highest pre-playoff ranking yet, and higher than the highest rated PAC-12 team. Each year brings more progress.

If the G5 were to break off like you suggest, then we'll ultimately stop winning recruiting battles against our P5 rivals. THAT will make the gap bigger, rather than sticking around and taking our lumps.

Also, FWIW, I'm not on board for a G5 auto-bid. We should have to get a team in on our merits. With that being said, that goes for the P5 too. No conferences should get auto-bids. Conference championships can help your case, like now, but it's not the only criteria.

UCF got to #8 with a garbage schedule. If the playoff were to go to 8, the AAC would field a team in it every few years.

Houston plays Oklahoma and Washington State next year, Cincy plays Ohio State and UCLA, UCF plays Stanford and Pitt, and USF plays Wisconsin and Georgia. We're certainly not favored in those games, but any team that wins out with them will be tough to keep out.

You pretty much speak for most G5 fans and their respective school presidents. Your about recruiting is spot on and greatly overlooked by many G5 playoff advocates.

I will disagree though regarding autobids. It will make the P5 more amenable to the idea of an expanded CFP if they know their are built in monetary guarantees in the new system. Also, you reduce the utility of the selection committee to ranking teams and selecting the two wild cards.

I like that. Im all for the committee being responsible for placing fewer teams into the playoff bracket. I prefer the vast majority of the playoff bracket be filled as a direct result of action that plays out on the field in full view of every fan in the nation.

Then you must not like the NCAA tournament very much, as the majority of its slots are filled by a selection committee.

Sure, the Basketball Selection Committee picks about half the teams in the tournament——but only AFTER EVERY CONFERENCE CHAMP RECEIVES AN AUTOMATIC BERTH. Everyone is guaranteed at least one team in. That’s nit even in the same zip code of the CFP model. We are just hoping to someday get to the point where 50% of the conferences are given a single shared berth.....

(12-06-2018 11:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 11:33 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 12:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 08:50 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  You pretty much speak for most G5 fans and their respective school presidents. Your about recruiting is spot on and greatly overlooked by many G5 playoff advocates.

I will disagree though regarding autobids. It will make the P5 more amenable to the idea of an expanded CFP if they know their are built in monetary guarantees in the new system. Also, you reduce the utility of the selection committee to ranking teams and selecting the two wild cards.

I like that. Im all for the committee being responsible for placing fewer teams into the playoff bracket. I prefer the vast majority of the playoff bracket be filled as a direct result of action that plays out on the field in full view of every fan in the nation.

Then you must not like the NCAA tournament very much, as the majority of its slots are filled by a selection committee.

And yet what makes it great are the Cinderella stories like UMBC taking down Virginia. If only the football folks could see this and let every team control their own destiny...

USFFan

Thing is, the NCAA tournament used to consist primarily of conference champs, but that regime ended more than 40 years ago.

The only reason the NCAA tournament allows in all conference champs is because it also allows for half of the B1G or ACC to get in an as well.

So in order to have a football playoff that is analogous to March Madness, and tossing out the FCS teams that are not part of the FBS football structure, to have a football playoff that includes all of the G5 champs, the playoffs would have to be about 42 teams large. That would be the same thing, all conference champs but also the big conferences can put 5-6 teams in to the football playoffs the way they can in hoops.

And truthfully, that's the only fair way to give every FBS team a path by including all conference champs, as the 5th or 6th place SEC team is often better than a given G5 champ.

What is a total non-starter, from a money or fairness perspective, is to have say an 8 or 16 or even 24 team playoff with all G5 champs but at most two or so teams from a P5 league.

I completely disagree. All of those P5 schools had an opportunity to prove they were the best team on the field. Plus they were all handsomely rewarded for their efforts through the lucrative conference TV deals and the guarantee that each team gets their conference opponents to come to their stadium. So not only are they not at any kind of competitive disadvantage, they're actually at a competitive advantage - more exposure, more money and more attractive opponents.

If the FBS went the way of the FCS playoffs (the 24 team system) and gave berths to the 10 conference champions (allowing 14 at-large berths), those same power conferences would host home games over the vast majority of the G5 schools anyway, meaning they'd still get their competitive advantage AND make more money because of the home gate.

Truth be told, the only reasonable argument against this playoff at the FBS level is the tradition of the bowls, and people who just want to ensure there's no hope for the commoners

(12-06-2018 12:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 12:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 08:50 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 04:01 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I would rather go toe to toe with the #1 team at their house than go for this. I can't speak for the rest of the G's, but our conference produced a #8 team, our highest pre-playoff ranking yet, and higher than the highest rated PAC-12 team. Each year brings more progress.

If the G5 were to break off like you suggest, then we'll ultimately stop winning recruiting battles against our P5 rivals. THAT will make the gap bigger, rather than sticking around and taking our lumps.

Also, FWIW, I'm not on board for a G5 auto-bid. We should have to get a team in on our merits. With that being said, that goes for the P5 too. No conferences should get auto-bids. Conference championships can help your case, like now, but it's not the only criteria.

UCF got to #8 with a garbage schedule. If the playoff were to go to 8, the AAC would field a team in it every few years.

Houston plays Oklahoma and Washington State next year, Cincy plays Ohio State and UCLA, UCF plays Stanford and Pitt, and USF plays Wisconsin and Georgia. We're certainly not favored in those games, but any team that wins out with them will be tough to keep out.

You pretty much speak for most G5 fans and their respective school presidents. Your about recruiting is spot on and greatly overlooked by many G5 playoff advocates.

I will disagree though regarding autobids. It will make the P5 more amenable to the idea of an expanded CFP if they know their are built in monetary guarantees in the new system. Also, you reduce the utility of the selection committee to ranking teams and selecting the two wild cards.

I like that. Im all for the committee being responsible for placing fewer teams into the playoff bracket. I prefer the vast majority of the playoff bracket be filled as a direct result of action that plays out on the field in full view of every fan in the nation.

Then you must not like the NCAA tournament very much, as the majority of its slots are filled by a selection committee.

Sure, the Basketball Selection Committee picks about half the teams in the tournament——but only AFTER EVERY CONFERENCE CHAMP RECEIVES AN AUTOMATIC BERTH. You sure you want to use that as a comparative example—because I’d be happy to go with that model.

Both of those statements are true.

I'm not sure why some continue to argue for the basketball tournament model to be applied to football. In basketball, you can have play two games in a four-day span, followed by another two the following week in the same timeframe. In football, that is completely unattainable; you can only play one game per week. Even if you expand the playoff by some ridiculous amount, you cannot do so with a) extending the season by several weeks or b) asking the P5 to relinquish home playoff games (for which they make a boatload of money) in order for the greater good to be fair and balanced towards the lower-level teams that simply do not bring in the same amount of revenue or fan attendance.

(12-06-2018 12:17 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I'm not sure why some continue to argue for the basketball tournament model to be applied to football. In basketball, you can have play two games in a four-day span, followed by another two the following week in the same timeframe. In football, that is completely unattainable; you can only play one game per week. Even if you expand the playoff by some ridiculous amount, you cannot do so with a) extending the season by several weeks or b) asking the P5 to relinquish home playoff games (for which they make a boatload of money) in order for the greater good to be fair and balanced towards the lower-level teams that simply do not bring in the same amount of revenue or fan attendance.

That was a response to a specific post. I do not believe the basketball model will work for football. Im an advocate of an 8 team playoff with the P5 champs and top ranked G5 champ all getting automatic berths. The two highest ranked non-champs would get in as wildcards to fill our the bracket. I’d play the first round on campus the week after championship Saturday. Id also reseed after the first round if a Big10 team and a Pac12 team were still alive in the playoff—so those two teams would automatically meet in the Rose Bowl on NYD as a semi-final game to preserve tradition where possible.

(12-06-2018 12:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 12:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 08:50 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 04:01 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I would rather go toe to toe with the #1 team at their house than go for this. I can't speak for the rest of the G's, but our conference produced a #8 team, our highest pre-playoff ranking yet, and higher than the highest rated PAC-12 team. Each year brings more progress.

If the G5 were to break off like you suggest, then we'll ultimately stop winning recruiting battles against our P5 rivals. THAT will make the gap bigger, rather than sticking around and taking our lumps.

Also, FWIW, I'm not on board for a G5 auto-bid. We should have to get a team in on our merits. With that being said, that goes for the P5 too. No conferences should get auto-bids. Conference championships can help your case, like now, but it's not the only criteria.

UCF got to #8 with a garbage schedule. If the playoff were to go to 8, the AAC would field a team in it every few years.

Houston plays Oklahoma and Washington State next year, Cincy plays Ohio State and UCLA, UCF plays Stanford and Pitt, and USF plays Wisconsin and Georgia. We're certainly not favored in those games, but any team that wins out with them will be tough to keep out.

You pretty much speak for most G5 fans and their respective school presidents. Your about recruiting is spot on and greatly overlooked by many G5 playoff advocates.

I will disagree though regarding autobids. It will make the P5 more amenable to the idea of an expanded CFP if they know their are built in monetary guarantees in the new system. Also, you reduce the utility of the selection committee to ranking teams and selecting the two wild cards.

I like that. Im all for the committee being responsible for placing fewer teams into the playoff bracket. I prefer the vast majority of the playoff bracket be filled as a direct result of action that plays out on the field in full view of every fan in the nation.

Then you must not like the NCAA tournament very much, as the majority of its slots are filled by a selection committee.

Sure, the Basketball Selection Committee picks about half the teams in the tournament——but only AFTER EVERY CONFERENCE CHAMP RECEIVES AN AUTOMATIC BERTH. Everyone is guaranteed at least one team in. That’s nit even in the same zip code of the CFP model. We are just hoping to someday get to the point where 50% of the conferences are given a single shared berth.....

As I explained to "USFFAN", the only reason all conference champs get in to March Madness automatically is because the power conferences can get 6 or 7 teams as well. If the choice is between a tournament of all conference champs but only a small number of at-large teams, or a big one with no auto-bids for conference champs, the NCAA would surely go with the latter. That was settled 40 years ago when the tournament expanded dramatically. The same thing is true with college baseball.

So to have a football tournament that is analogous to the hoops tourney, it would have to be about 40 - 44 teams large. That way, every FBS champ gets in, but also the SEC and B1G can get 5 or 6 teams in, as they can in hoops and baseball.

A football playoff where all champs get in but the power conferences can get at most a second or maybe third team in - such as in an 8, 16, or 24 team tourney - would be far more lop-sided in favor of G5 conferences than the NCAA hoops or baseball events are. A non-starter.

And that's actually more competitively fair: If a G5 champ that doesn't play anyone in the top 30 goes unbeaten and gets an auto-bid to a football playoff, like a UCF or a Troy or a SDSU, it *should* have to fight its way through say 3 highly ranked P5 teams to get to the final 4, to make up for all the ranked teams it didn't play in navigating its soft schedule.

(12-06-2018 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  A football playoff where all champs get in but the power conferences can get at most a second or maybe third team in - such as in an 8, 16, or 24 team tourney - would be far more lop-sided in favor of G5 conferences than the NCAA hoops or baseball events are. A non-starter.

That is the problem in a nutshell... a proposed system where 19/24 spots (effectively 80%) going to the P5 conferences is "far more lop-sided in favor of the G5 conferences." It would actually be funny if it weren't so pathetic...

USFFan

(12-06-2018 12:17 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I'm not sure why some continue to argue for the basketball tournament model to be applied to football. In basketball, you can have play two games in a four-day span, followed by another two the following week in the same timeframe. In football, that is completely unattainable; you can only play one game per week.

You're not following the subtlety of my thinking (LOL). I am totally against a hoops-sized tournament for football, as you say it is totally impractical.

But, i invoke it because those favoring a football playoff with auto-bids for conference champs often support that by saying "like it is in the NCAA tournament". My point is, yes, the hoops tournament does admit all conference champs, but that's not the only thing it does. It also allows many teams from the power conferences to get in too. A Big East or ACC or B1G can get 6 or 7 or more teams in. And if they couldn't, the NCAA hoops tournament would NOT have auto-bids for conference champs.

Therefore, unless you are proposing a football playoff that would allow say 5-6 teams from the SEC in, it is not valid to say you are proposing an all-champs model that is analogous to the hoops tournament. And such an event would of course be impractical.

(12-06-2018 12:14 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 11:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 11:33 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 12:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I like that. Im all for the committee being responsible for placing fewer teams into the playoff bracket. I prefer the vast majority of the playoff bracket be filled as a direct result of action that plays out on the field in full view of every fan in the nation.

Then you must not like the NCAA tournament very much, as the majority of its slots are filled by a selection committee.

And yet what makes it great are the Cinderella stories like UMBC taking down Virginia. If only the football folks could see this and let every team control their own destiny...

USFFan

Thing is, the NCAA tournament used to consist primarily of conference champs, but that regime ended more than 40 years ago.

The only reason the NCAA tournament allows in all conference champs is because it also allows for half of the B1G or ACC to get in an as well.

So in order to have a football playoff that is analogous to March Madness, and tossing out the FCS teams that are not part of the FBS football structure, to have a football playoff that includes all of the G5 champs, the playoffs would have to be about 42 teams large. That would be the same thing, all conference champs but also the big conferences can put 5-6 teams in to the football playoffs the way they can in hoops.

And truthfully, that's the only fair way to give every FBS team a path by including all conference champs, as the 5th or 6th place SEC team is often better than a given G5 champ.

What is a total non-starter, from a money or fairness perspective, is to have say an 8 or 16 or even 24 team playoff with all G5 champs but at most two or so teams from a P5 league.

I completely disagree. All of those P5 schools had an opportunity to prove they were the best team on the field. Plus they were all handsomely rewarded for their efforts through the lucrative conference TV deals and the guarantee that each team gets their conference opponents to come to their stadium. So not only are they not at any kind of competitive disadvantage, they're actually at a competitive advantage - more exposure, more money and more attractive opponents.

If the competitive goal is to make the playoffs, which it would be, and if say a conference can get at most 2 or 3 teams in, then I would say that a school in a tough conference is WAY disadvantaged competitively compared to a G5 school in a soft conference.

A school like Mississippi State, probably around the #18 team in the country, would never likely sniff the playoffs in a 16 or even 24-team format because there are always 3-4 SEC teams ahead of them, but a team like NIU (which MC says is the #60 team) that is clearly not as good but is always in the running for its MAC conference title would make likely become a playoff regular. That is nonsensical.

As for getting more money from TV deals and the like, that's just not a relevant aspect of this issue, which is the format of the playoffs.

Quote:A school like Mississippi State, probably around the #18 team in the country, would never likely sniff the playoffs in a 16 or even 24-team format because there are always 3-4 SEC teams ahead of them, but a team like NIU (which MC says is the #60 team) that is clearly not as good but is always in the running for its MAC conference title would make likely become a playoff regular. That is nonsensical.

Yet is how almost every other sport runs a playoff.

(12-06-2018 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 12:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 12:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 08:50 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  You pretty much speak for most G5 fans and their respective school presidents. Your about recruiting is spot on and greatly overlooked by many G5 playoff advocates.

I will disagree though regarding autobids. It will make the P5 more amenable to the idea of an expanded CFP if they know their are built in monetary guarantees in the new system. Also, you reduce the utility of the selection committee to ranking teams and selecting the two wild cards.

I like that. Im all for the committee being responsible for placing fewer teams into the playoff bracket. I prefer the vast majority of the playoff bracket be filled as a direct result of action that plays out on the field in full view of every fan in the nation.

Then you must not like the NCAA tournament very much, as the majority of its slots are filled by a selection committee.

Sure, the Basketball Selection Committee picks about half the teams in the tournament——but only AFTER EVERY CONFERENCE CHAMP RECEIVES AN AUTOMATIC BERTH. Everyone is guaranteed at least one team in. That’s nit even in the same zip code of the CFP model. We are just hoping to someday get to the point where 50% of the conferences are given a single shared berth.....

As I explained to "USFFAN", the only reason all conference champs get in to March Madness automatically is because the power conferences can get 6 or 7 teams as well. If the choice is between a tournament of all conference champs but only a small number of at-large teams, or a big one with no auto-bids for conference champs, the NCAA would surely go with the latter. That was settled 40 years ago when the tournament expanded dramatically. The same thing is true with college baseball.

So to have a football tournament that is analogous to the hoops tourney, it would have to be about 40 - 44 teams large. That way, every FBS champ gets in, but also the SEC and B1G can get 5 or 6 teams in, as they can in hoops and baseball.

A football playoff where all champs get in but the power conferences can get at most a second or maybe third team in - such as in an 8, 16, or 24 team tourney - would be far more lop-sided in favor of G5 conferences than the NCAA hoops or baseball events are. A non-starter.

And that's actually more competitively fair: If a G5 champ that doesn't play anyone in the top 30 goes unbeaten and gets an auto-bid to a football playoff, like a UCF or a Troy or a SDSU, it *should* have to fight its way through say 3 highly ranked P5 teams to get to the final 4, to make up for all the ranked teams it didn't play in navigating its soft schedule.

As I said, I dont advocate the NCAA model. I stated what I think fits the situation. There would essentially be 8 slots and the P5 would typically get 7 of them. Even with the massive advantage the P5 has in "at large" NCAA basketball bids, my football system would be even more favorable to the P5 than the basketball system (87.5% of my football field would typically being filled by P5s). Basically, the only thing more advantageous to the P5 in a CFP setting is something like the current system where the G5 really has no legitimate realistic access at all.

Basically, I just want to see a real path for the G5---and I dont really think its unreasonably that the vast majority of the field be filled with P5 schools. I suspect most fans and writers would agree thats a fairly reasonable system that would serve college football well. I think its good for the sport if every team kicks off in September with a legitimate way to win their way into the playoff--regardless of conference. It would be nice if that "Who's in?" commercial ESPN likes to run actually spoke to every FBS fan.

(12-06-2018 03:59 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 03:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  A football playoff where all champs get in but the power conferences can get at most a second or maybe third team in - such as in an 8, 16, or 24 team tourney - would be far more lop-sided in favor of G5 conferences than the NCAA hoops or baseball events are. A non-starter.

That is the problem in a nutshell... a proposed system where 19/24 spots (effectively 80%) going to the P5 conferences is "far more lop-sided in favor of the G5 conferences." It would actually be funny if it weren't so pathetic...

USFFan

I disagree. Cities and their respective Chambers of Commerce throw stupid money around to host bowls. Coaches are fans of bowls because it is an effective cover for lackluster performance. And clearly the P5 enjoys it as they can send most of the conferences teams to the various bowls. There are a host of parties that have a vested interest in limiting the playoff size that have nothing to do with the G5 access.

(12-05-2018 10:26 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 07:37 AM)micahandme Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 06:21 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  A PSU fan wanting to watch "G5" playoff games. Really?

What else is on Friday and Saturday night? Basketball. Ugh.

Sports fans love anything with some degree of "stakes" and meaning to it. A random bowl game between two G5 teams...nah. A "playoff" game between two G5 teams...maybe.

Last year the FCS championship game drew 1.515 million viewers - which was more than five bowl games. These five bowl games were the Tuesday & Wednesday games in the working week before Christmas, and the three undercard games on the first Bowl Saturday (Las Vegas Bowl always has the late afternoon slot and does well; Celebration Bowl beat the FCS championship, so drumlines for the win).
The year before that, the FCS championship drew 1.562 million viewers. Again, better than a handful of bowls, but NOT better than the Tuesday Dec 20th Boca Raton Bowl or the Wednesday Dec 21st Poinsettia Bowl. That year the FCS semis were also rated games and the JMU-NDSU semi got 1.065 million viewers better than only, ONLY the Monday afternnoon Dec 19th Miami Beach Bowl; the other semi beat NO BOWLS.

Its not a good idea from getting viewers, and its a terrible idea for the AAC which is trying to position itself higher, not lower.

Can you step back for a second and remember the VAST difference between the fan bases and prestige of the FCS championship game participants and the G5 playoff participants which I am mentioning?

You G5 fans actually insult yourself by downplaying my "ratings" estimates. North Dakota State against Colgate this weekend? Are you kidding? The average sports fan would think this was a joke if it showed up as a viewing option. The average sports fan--with nothing else to watch this weekend, mind you--appreciates the name Cincinnati, Army, UCF, Boise State...etc.

You can't compare the Army/Navy game ratings--when it is literally the ONLY CFB game on this weekend--with the ratings of an exciting playoff.

(The AAC might be "trying" to position itself higher...in the same way that you are "trying" to position yourself with a date with Kate Upton. Good luck.)

(12-06-2018 08:44 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Even if we’re effectively shut out of the CFP, a NYD bowl via the access bowl is a better prize for being the best G5 than winning a secondary playoff imo.

Definitely. A 10% to 20% shot at getting a champion into a big NY6 Bowl ... that is, if the AAC stumbles in the same year that the MAC has a strong contender ... offers something this could never offer.

That's why the AAC would not sign up for this, because they will hope to be in the Access Bowl 50%+.

And if the AAC is not in this, then it's not even necessarily going to be a tournament to find the "second best of the Go5" ... where the "2nd best" before the tournament might be the AAC 2nd place team in a AAC Access Bowl season, or the AAC champion in a year someone else grabs the Access Bowl spot.

Certainly any conference that has a shot of putting their champion into a secondary bowl bid against an A5 school will do that over sending them to participate in a glorified football version of the CIT, so it is easy to envision the three or four best Go5 schools playing elsewhere.

Now, the proposal to use some of the CFP money to buy up into two #2/A5 and #3/A5 bowls, along with a #4v#5 bowl, that's something that the AAC might go for, as a backup for what they would envision as the minority of the time when they would not gain the Access Bowl spot.

(12-06-2018 06:07 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:A school like Mississippi State, probably around the #18 team in the country, would never likely sniff the playoffs in a 16 or even 24-team format because there are always 3-4 SEC teams ahead of them, but a team like NIU (which MC says is the #60 team) that is clearly not as good but is always in the running for its MAC conference title would make likely become a playoff regular. That is nonsensical.

Yet is how almost every other sport runs a playoff.

No it's not.

First, remember, the relevant comparisons are to other college sports, the closest examples being basketball and baseball. Neither of which are run anything like that. In both sports, an excellent conference can put its 5th, 6th, or 7th place team in the playoffs. It's common for top conferences to have a half-dozen, sometimes more, teams in.

Second, while yes, in say the NFL, it sometimes happens that team X with a better record misses the playoffs while team Y with a worse one makes it because of divisions. But, these are always close calls. E.g., the Titans might play in a soft division and make the playoffs as 9-7 division champs while if the AFC West is tough the Chargers might barely miss the playoffs as a wild-card at 10-6. That happens. But it doesn't happen often, and it's always close.

In the example above, we're talking about the #60 team getting in while the #18 sits. That never happens in any sport I can think of.

As I said, to be analogous to the nearest relevant examples, baseball and hoops, we'd need about a 40 - 44 team football playoffs. Less than that, and we'd have egregious situations like the above.

(12-05-2018 10:26 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 07:37 AM)micahandme Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 06:21 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  A PSU fan wanting to watch "G5" playoff games. Really?

What else is on Friday and Saturday night? Basketball. Ugh.

Sports fans love anything with some degree of "stakes" and meaning to it. A random bowl game between two G5 teams...nah. A "playoff" game between two G5 teams...maybe.

Last year the FCS championship game drew 1.515 million viewers - which was more than five bowl games. These five bowl games were the Tuesday & Wednesday games in the working week before Christmas, and the three undercard games on the first Bowl Saturday (Las Vegas Bowl always has the late afternoon slot and does well; Celebration Bowl beat the FCS championship, so drumlines for the win).
The year before that, the FCS championship drew 1.562 million viewers. Again, better than a handful of bowls, but NOT better than the Tuesday Dec 20th Boca Raton Bowl or the Wednesday Dec 21st Poinsettia Bowl. That year the FCS semis were also rated games and the JMU-NDSU semi got 1.065 million viewers better than only, ONLY the Monday afternnoon Dec 19th Miami Beach Bowl; the other semi beat NO BOWLS.

To address your assertion, a lower level championship in a good timeslot MIGHT beat a couple bowls in bad timeslots. The "quarterfinals" you present would not. Period.

Also funny that you actually have Army vs Troy on the 8th...that matchup, plus ALL the others on that day wouldnt come close to the 8 million viewers who actually WILL watch Army Navy this Saturday.

Its not a good idea from getting viewers, and its a terrible idea for the AAC which is trying to position itself higher, not lower.

I'm going to throw out some estimates, which are certainly debatable.

So if Army/Navy gets 8 million viewers (I have no idea if that's true)...almost half of them are affiliated with the Army or veterans...and the other half are affiliated with Navy or veterans. A portion of them--maybe 2 million TOPS--are just bored sports fans with nothing else to watch. Literally.

My "Army vs. Troy" game then...which is a playoff game, remember?...would get 3 million Army-affiliated people to watch...plus some other football fans (maybe 1 million) with nothing else to watch on that day.

The other "round of 16" games wouldn't get those kind of ratings (4 million viewers) but they'd easily get in the 1 million range easily. Lousy bowl games get 2 million easily (and they mean nothing!!!) so a G5 playoff would also get 2 million easily.

No other game in the G5 playoff participants' seasons would be CLOSE to the importance of THIS game. Houston football during the regular season--competing against TAMU and UT and LSU's games on a Saturday--gets decent ratings. When it's all by itself on a Saturday, it would CRUSH the ratings.

(12-06-2018 06:07 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:A school like Mississippi State, probably around the #18 team in the country, would never likely sniff the playoffs in a 16 or even 24-team format because there are always 3-4 SEC teams ahead of them, but a team like NIU (which MC says is the #60 team) that is clearly not as good but is always in the running for its MAC conference title would make likely become a playoff regular. That is nonsensical.

Yet is how almost every other sport runs a playoff.

Any playoff that includes ALL FBS Conference Champions will have to be large enough to guarantee that the P5 is over represented so that they monopolize the revenue. This is what happens with the basketball tourney, and the following link is the football equivalent of the basketball tourney...

https://csnbbs.com/thread-865406.html

Those P5 schools left out of the above tourney are not any better than any G5 Conference champion.

Whats wrong with a G5 plus one between the four non NY6 conferences? This year it would be..

Fresno St. vs NIU
App vs UNT

Higher seeds host the weekend of the Army v Navy game and the winners play every year on New years Day in Vegas at the Raiders stadium. Losers can take whatever bowl game they want.

(12-07-2018 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 06:07 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:A school like Mississippi State, probably around the #18 team in the country, would never likely sniff the playoffs in a 16 or even 24-team format because there are always 3-4 SEC teams ahead of them, but a team like NIU (which MC says is the #60 team) that is clearly not as good but is always in the running for its MAC conference title would make likely become a playoff regular. That is nonsensical.

Yet is how almost every other sport runs a playoff.

No it's not.

First, remember, the relevant comparisons are to other college sports, the closest examples being basketball and baseball. Neither of which are run anything like that. In both sports, an excellent conference can put its 5th, 6th, or 7th place team in the playoffs. It's common for top conferences to have a half-dozen, sometimes more, teams in.

Second, while yes, in say the NFL, it sometimes happens that team X with a better record misses the playoffs while team Y with a worse one makes it because of divisions. But, these are always close calls. E.g., the Titans might play in a soft division and make the playoffs as 9-7 division champs while if the AFC West is tough the Chargers might barely miss the playoffs as a wild-card at 10-6. That happens. But it doesn't happen often, and it's always close.

In the example above, we're talking about the #60 team getting in while the #18 sits. That never happens in any sport I can think of.

As I said, to be analogous to the nearest relevant examples, baseball and hoops, we'd need about a 40 - 44 team football playoffs. Less than that, and we'd have egregious situations like the above.

In basically every other sport, and every other level of football, every team has a chance to be the champion. FBS is basically the only exception.

In college basketball you get teams that are much worse than #60 in the NCAA tournament. But that's okay for the top teams because they also get in since there are 64+ spots, almost 20% of the teams.