(12-09-2018 08:10 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 01:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You bring up an interesting point. Here is what I think MIGHT be worth considering. An NIT Football tournament owned by the CFP that tests the viability and possible commercial success of an 8 team CFP. This would not be a strictly G5 tournament. It would be an FBS tournament.

The NIT Football tournament would be seeded the exact same way the NIT is. Regular season conference champs not included in the NCAA tournament get auto bids to the NIT. So, in football—you’d start with all FBS champs NOT in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. That’s basically the four G5 champs not in the access bowl.

The rest of the 8 team field is made up of the top Committee teams not included in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. You can have the games on the home campus of the higher ranked team—or you could integrate the tourney into the bowl system (or perhaps a combination of each with home stadiums for the first round and bowls for the later rounds),

Now, THAT might have some appeal to TV and, because it includes both the G5 and the P5, is NOT a road to seperate lower “G5 division” that might be worth considering.

This is a proposal that the AAC might buy into. I think higher ranked host in the first round, two post-XMas, pre-NYD bowls semi-finals, and a CFIT Championship Game in the week in between the NY6 and the NCG.

If the quarterfinals are hosted by the four higher CFP ranked schools among the eight, then to add extra spice, the visitors might choose their destination by CFP ranking as well.

To get A5 buy-in, it would have to be optional for the at-large teams ... so it would be more in demand by younger teams who want the extra game time and a more senior heavy team might just want a traditional bowl game. Those quarterfinals make more compelling viewing than the typical pre-XMas bowls, so they crowd some of those out if they are played two weeks after CCG week, but as they remove four bowls worth of teams from the traditional bowl system, and only use two conventional bowls, there's leeway for shuttering a couple of ESPN owned bowls to make room.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(12-09-2018 12:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, I didn't say that no SB/CUSA/MAC team would ever get in. I said each would have about a 1% chance of getting in per year. That's a 3% chance of one of them getting in each year, a 1/33 chance. That's hardly "practically impossible". Those kinds of things happen every day just around your house.

Really, once in a century events regarding one of the main things you are trying to do in the year do not happen every day around your house. To happen every day, they have to have an odds higher than once per century.

Quote: So yes, I'm assuming that it is somewhat fluky that a MAC team has gotten in during the 5 years of the CFP. On the other hand, the SB and CUSA have not put any in.

It's only fluky that it was the MAC that got in rather than CUSA or SBC ... the AAC will have years that the top teams beat each other up and take their champion out of the running, and both the AAC and MWC will have relatively down years and years that the CCG is an upset win by a team that is not in line for the Access Bowl. That spot is going to be open a lot more than once in 33 years. And those will not be correlated between the two conferences, so its going to be a lot more often than one in 33 years that there is an opening.

What was fluky about that year was that the MAC was in no matter who won the CCG ... I reckon it would be more typical that the fact that it is an "open" year for the best of the MAC, CUSA or SBC champions or which conference will fill the slot or both will happen during Championship week, which increases the appeal of the Go5 Champions Week games.

Quote: Bottom line is, even if we assume I am wrong and that the distribution is more along the lines of what has actually happened - 60% AAC, 20% MWC, 20% CUSA/SB/MAC, as that works out to about a 6.7% chance of the CUSA, MAC, or SB putting a team in the playoffs, I don't see how they have much incentive to support it, when the overwhelming benefits will go to the AAC and to a lesser extent the MWC.

If a better offer for the MAC/CUSA/SBC/MWC is on the table, sure, the idea that half the time it will be the AAC champion in the Access Bowl will weaken support. It's just that a Go5 playoff, minus the Access Bowl participant, minus the AAC bowl eligible teams not in the Access Bowl, and minus any other ranked bowl eligible Go5 teams able to snare a secondary bowl spot against an A5 team is not enough media value to generate the money to justify handing away that one in fifteen year place in the Access Bowl.

Quote: You might reply with "well, 7% is better than 0% as it is now", but there is one benefit to the status quo, which is that it does keep the AAC and MWC in the fold with the other G5.

I don't understand this. 7% is better than 0%, and the current system keeps the AAC in the fold. The alternative in the OP would force the AAC to choose between sending it's best teams into a second tier playoff and keeping it's P5 bowls, and it will keep it's P5 bowls every time, so it would actually create the "Go4" that at present only exists in the fevered imaginations of certain slightly disconnected from reality AAC supporters.

Quote: So IMO, a 7% chance isn't enough for the SB to endorse a system that is much more likely to end up with them losing more status (as the AAC and MWC separate) within the current system.

I don't see acknowledging the AAC as separate as being an alternative that will tend to keep the AAC from separating. IMV, it is the reverse: I think the OP proposal which would never be accepted by the AAC is the alternative that would tend to separate the AAC from the rest of the Go5.

I think the way you get A5 buy in is by making it lucrative. Set it up where round one is 1.5 million a team. Round two is 3 million a team. The championship game pays 5 million a team. That’s almost 10 million if you make it to the finals. That pays more than any bowl and more than the access bowl if you make the second round.

(12-12-2018 11:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the way you get A5 buy in is by making it lucrative. Set it up where round one is 1.5 million a team. Round two is 3 million a team. The championship game pays 5 million a team. That’s almost 10 million if you make it to the finals. That pays more than any bowl and more than the access bowl if you make the second round.

Good point, though it's a bit like the recipe for grizzly bear soup ... "Step 1. Catch and kill one large adult male grizzly bear." "Make the money so rich to the winner that schools will not turn down the chance at the prize."

Works for a whole hell of a lot of arrangements if you can arrange the money to be there, but making sure that money is there is typically the sticking point.

There is a substantial media value for having a tournament championship game in the gap in the CFP schedule between New Year's Day and the NCG. I don't know how big, but if the payouts are big enough to make schools happy to skip, eg, the non-CFP NY bowls, then it wouldn't be necessary to make it optional.

(12-12-2018 11:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 08:10 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 01:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You bring up an interesting point. Here is what I think MIGHT be worth considering. An NIT Football tournament owned by the CFP that tests the viability and possible commercial success of an 8 team CFP. This would not be a strictly G5 tournament. It would be an FBS tournament.

The NIT Football tournament would be seeded the exact same way the NIT is. Regular season conference champs not included in the NCAA tournament get auto bids to the NIT. So, in football—you’d start with all FBS champs NOT in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. That’s basically the four G5 champs not in the access bowl.

The rest of the 8 team field is made up of the top Committee teams not included in the CFP or a CFP controlled bowl. You can have the games on the home campus of the higher ranked team—or you could integrate the tourney into the bowl system (or perhaps a combination of each with home stadiums for the first round and bowls for the later rounds),

Now, THAT might have some appeal to TV and, because it includes both the G5 and the P5, is NOT a road to seperate lower “G5 division” that might be worth considering.

This is a proposal that the AAC might buy into. I think higher ranked host in the first round, two post-XMas, pre-NYD bowls semi-finals, and a CFIT Championship Game in the week in between the NY6 and the NCG.

If the quarterfinals are hosted by the four higher CFP ranked schools among the eight, then to add extra spice, the visitors might choose their destination by CFP ranking as well.

To get A5 buy-in, it would have to be optional for the at-large teams ... so it would be more in demand by younger teams who want the extra game time and a more senior heavy team might just want a traditional bowl game. Those quarterfinals make more compelling viewing than the typical pre-XMas bowls, so they crowd some of those out if they are played two weeks after CCG week, but as they remove four bowls worth of teams from the traditional bowl system, and only use two conventional bowls, there's leeway for shuttering a couple of ESPN owned bowls to make room.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(12-09-2018 12:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, I didn't say that no SB/CUSA/MAC team would ever get in. I said each would have about a 1% chance of getting in per year. That's a 3% chance of one of them getting in each year, a 1/33 chance. That's hardly "practically impossible". Those kinds of things happen every day just around your house.

Really, once in a century events regarding one of the main things you are trying to do in the year do not happen every day around your house. To happen every day, they have to have an odds higher than once per century.

Quote: So yes, I'm assuming that it is somewhat fluky that a MAC team has gotten in during the 5 years of the CFP. On the other hand, the SB and CUSA have not put any in.

It's only fluky that it was the MAC that got in rather than CUSA or SBC ... the AAC will have years that the top teams beat each other up and take their champion out of the running, and both the AAC and MWC will have relatively down years and years that the CCG is an upset win by a team that is not in line for the Access Bowl. That spot is going to be open a lot more than once in 33 years. And those will not be correlated between the two conferences, so its going to be a lot more often than one in 33 years that there is an opening.

What was fluky about that year was that the MAC was in no matter who won the CCG ... I reckon it would be more typical that the fact that it is an "open" year for the best of the MAC, CUSA or SBC champions or which conference will fill the slot or both will happen during Championship week, which increases the appeal of the Go5 Champions Week games.

Quote: Bottom line is, even if we assume I am wrong and that the distribution is more along the lines of what has actually happened - 60% AAC, 20% MWC, 20% CUSA/SB/MAC, as that works out to about a 6.7% chance of the CUSA, MAC, or SB putting a team in the playoffs, I don't see how they have much incentive to support it, when the overwhelming benefits will go to the AAC and to a lesser extent the MWC.

If a better offer for the MAC/CUSA/SBC/MWC is on the table, sure, the idea that half the time it will be the AAC champion in the Access Bowl will weaken support. It's just that a Go5 playoff, minus the Access Bowl participant, minus the AAC bowl eligible teams not in the Access Bowl, and minus any other ranked bowl eligible Go5 teams able to snare a secondary bowl spot against an A5 team is not enough media value to generate the money to justify handing away that one in fifteen year place in the Access Bowl.

Quote: You might reply with "well, 7% is better than 0% as it is now", but there is one benefit to the status quo, which is that it does keep the AAC and MWC in the fold with the other G5.

I don't understand this. 7% is better than 0%, and the current system keeps the AAC in the fold. The alternative in the OP would force the AAC to choose between sending it's best teams into a second tier playoff and keeping it's P5 bowls, and it will keep it's P5 bowls every time, so it would actually create the "Go4" that at present only exists in the fevered imaginations of certain slightly disconnected from reality AAC supporters.

Quote: So IMO, a 7% chance isn't enough for the SB to endorse a system that is much more likely to end up with them losing more status (as the AAC and MWC separate) within the current system.

I don't see acknowledging the AAC as separate as being an alternative that will tend to keep the AAC from separating. IMV, it is the reverse: I think the OP proposal which would never be accepted by the AAC is the alternative that would tend to separate the AAC from the rest of the Go5.

I think the way you get A5 buy in is by making it lucrative. Set it up where round one is 1.5 million a team. Round two is 3 million a team. The championship game pays 5 million a team. That’s almost 10 million if you make it to the finals. That pays more than any bowl and more than the access bowl if you make the second round.

Problem is, if that kind of money is available for an 8-team playoff, it is surely available for an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the P5 and then three at-large, with nothing guaranteed for the G5.

And as I explained, there's little incentive for 9 conferences to agree to a provision - G5 autobid - that will be likely be a boon to the AAC and nobody else.

(12-12-2018 07:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Problem is, if that kind of money is available for an 8-team playoff, it is surely available for an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the P5 and then three at-large, with nothing guaranteed for the G5.

And as I explained, there's little incentive for 9 conferences to agree to a provision - G5 autobid - that will be likely be a boon to the AAC and nobody else.

This is in reference to the "CFP NIT" proposal. The CFP NIT proposal does not get demolished by a move from a 4 team CFP to an 8 team CFP, since the A5 participants are the ones left out of the NY6 bowls, so they would also be left out of the 8 team CFP.

But the 8 team CFP may reduce the media value of the "CFP NIT", by providing four such high profile games in the pre-XMas period after CCG week. So an expansion of the CFP system so the "CFP NIT" is mandatory might be harder if there is also an eight team CFP, which leaves the at-large bids as optional.

There's also the issue of whether there are still the "non CFP NY6" bowls in the system, which would be the consolation prize to the highest ranked Go5 champion if they don't get into the 8 team CFP, and is what leaves four Go5 champions with autobids into the "CFP NIT"

Also, you may have explained "likely be a boon to the AAC and nobody else", but that doesn't automatically mean everyone is persuaded by your explanation. I am not. "Likely to be a bigger boon to the AAC than to other Go5 members" is one thing, but MAC Presidents will be more focused on the net benefit to the MAC schools rather than an invidious comparison with other conferences.

#MACtion has upsides and downsides, but one of the upsides if better FB recruiting than the MAC used to have ... if we have a larger number of the players needed to match up, once in a while we will happen to have the right combination of players and coach in a single team to grab the spotlight away from the AAC. And, indeed, the number 2 spot belong to the MWC is not written in stone anywhere, it is also subject to change.

So I think "once in a century" chance for the MAC to grab that spotlight is more the chance that my Golden Flashes do it in FB than the chance that any MAC school doing it.

I'm still waiting for evidence that MACtion has helped recruiting.

https://t.co/vAbgtYmoHn

The Titanic is sinking and the G5 fans are playing their violins. Their song? "We're in the same league as the P5 schools...we'd rather die than not be considered P5 equivalents anymore."

Die you might.

(12-19-2018 06:06 AM)micahandme Wrote:  https://t.co/vAbgtYmoHn

The Titanic is sinking and the G5 fans are playing their violins. Their song? "We're in the same league as the P5 schools...we'd rather die than not be considered P5 equivalents anymore."

Die you might.

Meh.
One of the five bowls dicussed isn't G5, so maybe the Celebration Bowl is a baseline for overall viewing, a measuring stick for whether "G5 bowls" are fading (I think thats one of your points). Flat in rating and -1% in viewers. Okay. Thats the overall market environment. In fact, as this is a matchup between SWAC and MEAC champs, it could be an indicator of the market for lower division champ vs champ. But I am happy just to take it as baseline..
So, the New Orleans Bowl, Sun Belt champ vs CUSA non- champ. Down .1 in rating, UP in viewership. Hmmm, not hearing the death knell for the bowl system in that. The viewership in fact was right around the known numbers for FCS championship game. Are you saying this would have done better than lower division championship numbers if it was a #6 vs #11 round of 16 game in a lower division tournament? You can think that but there is nothing to back it up other than your feelz.
Las Vegas Bowl - mwc champ vs a "P5" middle of the pack team. This is kind of the antithesis of the G5 playoff theory: mwc would rather keep this matchup w a middle of the pack Pac12; AAC would rather keep their SEC/ACC/BigXII matchups for #2,3,4 teams (after champ goes NY6). This bowl did just fine. Single digit drops and four year lows arent that big a deal. Also, that four-year low audience, 3.33 million viewers? Thats double the FCS championship. Look back to rivalry weekend and here are some games it outdrew: South Carolina-Clemson, Florida-Florida State on ABC, the Big10 game on Fox OTA following the big draw of UM OSU, the Egg Bowl. Yeah, I'll take that result over embracing second class status.
Camellia Bowl and New Mexicio Bowl definitely disappointing. Bigger drops, fewer than a million viewers. But you know what - these matchups of division runners up (not conference, division) did better than the FCS semifinals. If anything, the best case a "G5 playoff" proponent could make is that these matchups and these numbers are exactly what a round of 16 or quarterfinal would deliver. So why would there be TV money in it? Why would anyone change when we're already at the best case you could make? A best case that is vulnerable to the argument that this will trend closer to FCS once you package it as a lower level tourney rather than Bowls.

(12-19-2018 09:45 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  1. But you know what - these matchups of division runners up (not conference, division) did better than the FCS semifinals.

2.If anything, the best case a "G5 playoff" proponent could make is that these matchups and these numbers are exactly what a round of 16 or quarterfinal would deliver. So why would there be TV money in it? Why would anyone change when we're already at the best case you could make?

3. A best case that is vulnerable to the argument that this will trend closer to FCS once you package it as a lower level tourney rather than Bowls.

1. FCS < G5 < P5, right? So...the FCS semifinals < G5 semifinal < P5 semifinal. Obvious.
2. You don't see where the TV money is? Eight "round of 16 games" that make the same (in your scenario) money/viewership as eight meaningless bowl games among the G5 runner-ups and (maybe) champs. So, the money is equal there. NOW YOU ADD another four games (the quarterfinals) which will get BETTER ratings (more money). And THEN you add two more games which will get comparable ratings with the non-playoff NY6 bowls games. AND THEN you add a championship game which will be a very popular game which culminates a very exciting G5 playoff. That's seven more games which will make vastly more money...but the G5 is happy to collect the crumbs of that ONE measly NY6 bowl bid?!??! It's just insane!!!!
3. No. People LIKE good football and they LIKE tournaments. You put these games on two weekends where there is currently NO college football...and it will be a hit.

(12-19-2018 02:32 PM)micahandme Wrote:  

(12-19-2018 09:45 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  1. But you know what - these matchups of division runners up (not conference, division) did better than the FCS semifinals.

2.If anything, the best case a "G5 playoff" proponent could make is that these matchups and these numbers are exactly what a round of 16 or quarterfinal would deliver. So why would there be TV money in it? Why would anyone change when we're already at the best case you could make?

3. A best case that is vulnerable to the argument that this will trend closer to FCS once you package it as a lower level tourney rather than Bowls.

but the G5 is happy to collect the crumbs of that ONE measly NY6 bowl bid?!??! It's just insane!!!!

You do know that the non-contract-bowl conferences get more than the $4M (and the additional $2+M for expenses) for the one bowl bid, right?

We are talking about $91M distributed to these five conferences.

$91M ain't coming around for a an 8-9 game between the #47 and #56 teams in the country, or for the chance to see the #88 team in the country play a team that in another construct could have been playing in the Fiesta Bowl.

(12-19-2018 02:32 PM)micahandme Wrote:  

(12-19-2018 09:45 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  1. But you know what - these matchups of division runners up (not conference, division) did better than the FCS semifinals.

2.If anything, the best case a "G5 playoff" proponent could make is that these matchups and these numbers are exactly what a round of 16 or quarterfinal would deliver. So why would there be TV money in it? Why would anyone change when we're already at the best case you could make?

3. A best case that is vulnerable to the argument that this will trend closer to FCS once you package it as a lower level tourney rather than Bowls.

1. FCS < G5 < P5, right? So...the FCS semifinals < G5 semifinal < P5 semifinal. Obvious.

Once you say "we're not the CFP, or even getting one team in the NY6 bowls, we're a JV, I mean G5 playoff" it's more like:
FCS<G5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< P5

That's not what my school or my school's conference is shooting for.