1.) Eventually a G5 will beat #1

2.) I agree that G5's will fold. Schools like Rice won't.

(07-30-2019 12:49 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'm not planning on listening to it but what exactly did he say that hinted at a "G4" collapse? I'm not seeing anything in the OP's summary suggesting that.

he said tons of ADs in the g4 conference (likely c-usa, mac, subelt) have been contemplating what uconn is doing for the last year or so, who he has talked to

that their travel expenses are more than their revenue ..

that they want to go more regional

Joining the Big East and going Indy? Yeah, sign us up.

But seriously, griping about travel expenses is a far cry from a collapse of G5 football. It's been going on for years and many AD's in the CUSA and Sun Belt have spoken publicly about it especially amongst eastern teams. It's not so much "we can't afford this anymore" so much as it is "why are we traveling to Texas when we can build a perfectly respectable FBS conference on the East Coast?". I imagine ODU has one of the highest travel budgets in CUSA and the Sun Belt and it's just shy of $3.5M. We would absolutely love to spend more of that on coaches and recruiting while playing App St and the GA schools instead of going to Texas.
Something will get worked out eventually but we too are likely waiting on the B12. And if you're in the MAC and can't afford travel then DivII is likely the answer for you. I don't think FCS would even make it any better.

I think the UCONN AD is making it into a bigger deal than it is.

(07-30-2019 01:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Without coming right out and saying it----the picture he is painting sure sounds like he thinks FCS is a better place for UConn (more regional with a better chance to win a national title). Still, it seems like he is leaving the door open to possibly joining a very regional G5 type league, even though he apparently doesnt believe the non-power conference role in any expanded playoff will be worth sticking around for. He clearly thinks significant reorganization of much of the G5 is coming.

I think you're right but there is no regional G5 league for UCONN. The MAC is the closest thing but doubt they're interested. Time to join New Hampshire and Maine in the CAA?

(07-30-2019 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 01:01 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 11:55 AM)pesik Wrote:  2) says he thinks the playoff will eventually expand to 8 (not realistic to stay at 4). and thinks there will be a spot for the g5 but notes that it is only 1 spot for 60 teams, not great odds, then they'll be put against the top seed every year. and that's if its not an all at-large playoff which would be worse... how that's not ideal, he doesn't think its a legitimate shot, nothing to plan a future around

Sounds like a little bit of sour grapes....

1) ...spot for the g5 but notes that it is only 1 spot for 60 teams,
There are 65 teams in the 'P5'. The odds are not great for any team. Ask the PAC12 about their odds...

2). put against the top seed every year

Probably....but I don't think the 2017 UCF squad would have been an 8 seed. If you expand out a couple years and think about the old BigEast, there is no way those really good Louisville or West Virginia teams would have been 8 seeds. The big step is breaking the glass ceiling of having a 'G5' be part of the playoff mix. Once that happens, seedings will take care of themselves.

#1 is actually a really good point. Right now there is only 4 slots for 65 P5 teams---so having one slot for 65 G5 teams is not all that different than it is for most P5 teams in the current system. Having 1 slot for 65 teams is certainly a MUCH BETTER situtation than having ZERO slots for 65 teams like the G5 has now.

I agree with your #2--and dont really care if we are lined up vs the #1 seed most of the time. Your going to have to beat the best to win a National Championship anyway---so does it really matter when in the playoff you play them?

And of those 65 G5 teams, how many have a realistic shot at the playoff year in and out...15-16? One could argue it is an easier path to an 8 team playoff.

(07-30-2019 12:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:31 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 11:55 AM)pesik Wrote:  2) says he thinks the playoff will eventually expand to 8 (not realistic to stay at 4). and thinks there will be a spot for the g5 but notes that it is only 1 spot for 60 teams, not great odds, then they'll be put against the top seed every year. and that's if its not an all at-large playoff which would be worse... how that's not ideal, he doesn't think its a legitimate shot, nothing to plan a future around

A couple of thoughts on this:

1) How does he know that there will be a G5 slot in the 8-team playoff if nothing has been decided yet?

2) I'd rather see an at-large system than a guaranteed spot (assuming none of the other conferences have a guaranteed spot). Reasoning?
a) it seems like a handout, and whatever team we field will be sold as a wellfare slot.
b) If we can produce the 6th or 7th best team, I don't want to be automatically slotted in the 8-spot.
c) If we can't produce a top 8 team, then we have no business being in the playoff.

counter, no g5 has ever cracked the top 10 of the cfp ever....even if they were top 10 in the AP/Coaches...

we wont be given a fair shake without some auto bid...not with a committee style selection system

Houston would have, the year they beat OK and Louisville, if they hadn't lost in AAC play down the stretch. It is beneficial to play a strong OOC schedule.

I'm fine with a top 8 with no auto bids. But, I'd prefer getting rid of the committee. They have agendas. Use an updated BCS formula to pick the top 8. Using the computers takes away human biases. Guarantee we'd be ranked higher in the computers too, than the committee.

No autobids. What happens when a 20th ranked Pac 12 team (will happen) gets in. No way.

(07-30-2019 12:49 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'm not planning on listening to it but what exactly did he say that hinted at a "G4" collapse? I'm not seeing anything in the OP's summary suggesting that.

he said tons of ADs in the g4 conference (likely c-usa, mac, subelt) have been contemplating what uconn is doing for the last year or so, who he has talked to

that their travel expenses are more than their revenue ..

that they want to go more regional

UConn has to take action to cover an enormous athletic deficit ($40M).

I think UConn's AD is preparing fans and media for the eventual killing of FBS football to save money by lumping UConn in with other schools struggling to balance the budget.

(07-30-2019 12:49 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'm not planning on listening to it but what exactly did he say that hinted at a "G4" collapse? I'm not seeing anything in the OP's summary suggesting that.

he said tons of ADs in the g4 conference (likely c-usa, mac, subelt) have been contemplating what uconn is doing for the last year or so, who he has talked to

that their travel expenses are more than their revenue ..

that they want to go more regional

Somehow, I don't think that would make sense for that specific argument/conference pair. The extents of the conference in East to West are a puddle jumper charter away (Chicago to Buffalo) or a 9 hour bus ride.

Sun Belt and C-USA, that argument makes a TON of sense, but the MAC...not so much IMO. The only think changing the MAC would be if Grand Valley or Wayne State decided to move up (funnily enough, they are both larger institutions than all but 3 schools in the MAC, but have stuck around in D2), or if Akron goes under as an institution (which is entirely plausible at this point).

Ive been (and so have many) that expansion is basically dead and restructuring is what will happen.

This is why I have said that the only moves I can see happen will be B12 based. There is exactly 1 conference that can expand and its the Big 10. If and only if Texas and OU want to go there, then the financials would work out. Outside of that, I dont see any P5 pieces moving anytime soon.

The only reason i think the Texas move may happen is that it benefits the right people.
1. ESPN can get rid of the LHN by using it as a wedge to get a piece of the Big 10 contract. They wanted more and didnt get it. They can hold up any texas move since the LHN runs well past 2025.
2. The Big 10 only has maybe 2-3 teams that can add value to their conference and Texas/OU are 2 of them.
3. If you add up all the value of the rest of the Big 12, its not comparable to what Texas and OU are. ESPN can keep the Big 12 leftovers together and add in a few key teams to keep that conference alive for a fraction of the future costs. Texas and OU are gonna want the elite level of money and if they dont move to a tiered system in teh B12, then someone would have to overpay for the Leftover 8 in order to get them. It makes more sense to move Texas and OU to the Big 10 and pay the leftovers less.

In the end, I think you may see the P5 kinda become a P4, with a weakened Big 12 and then the last decent pieces of the MWC and AAC merge into the 6th conference. The rest will be relegated down. About 80 teams will remain at the top.

It won’t happen because it makes too much sense, but instead of a rematch Big12CCG, how bout something more interesting with higher stakes; a championship game between the best in the Big12 vs the best in the AAC, winner has a great (but not automatic) chance of getting in the 4 team playoffs.

I’m one of those that prefers the 4 team playoffs because any more really cheapens the NY6 Bowl games which should still have great teams representing in them. A hard rule should be no conference should have 2 reps in the same year.

(07-30-2019 01:38 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 01:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Without coming right out and saying it----the picture he is painting sure sounds like he thinks FCS is a better place for UConn (more regional with a better chance to win a national title). Still, it seems like he is leaving the door open to possibly joining a very regional G5 type league, even though he apparently doesnt believe the non-power conference role in any expanded playoff will be worth sticking around for. He clearly thinks significant reorganization of much of the G5 is coming.

I think you're right but there is no regional G5 league for UCONN. The MAC is the closest thing but doubt they're interested. Time to join New Hampshire and Maine in the CAA?

You beat me to this - 100% agree.

(07-30-2019 12:58 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:31 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 11:55 AM)pesik Wrote:  2) says he thinks the playoff will eventually expand to 8 (not realistic to stay at 4). and thinks there will be a spot for the g5 but notes that it is only 1 spot for 60 teams, not great odds, then they'll be put against the top seed every year. and that's if its not an all at-large playoff which would be worse... how that's not ideal, he doesn't think its a legitimate shot, nothing to plan a future around

A couple of thoughts on this:

1) How does he know that there will be a G5 slot in the 8-team playoff if nothing has been decided yet?

2) I'd rather see an at-large system than a guaranteed spot (assuming none of the other conferences have a guaranteed spot). Reasoning?
a) it seems like a handout, and whatever team we field will be sold as a wellfare slot.
b) If we can produce the 6th or 7th best team, I don't want to be automatically slotted in the 8-spot.
c) If we can't produce a top 8 team, then we have no business being in the playoff.

counter, no g5 has ever cracked the top 10 of the cfp ever....even if they were top 10 in the AP/Coaches...

we wont be given a fair shake without some auto bid...not with a committee style selection system

Counter: UCF was 8th when the playoff teams were selected last year, with a garbage OOC schedule.

Their resume almost entirely depended on Pitt's resume:
-Had a shot at #13 Penn State - Lost
-Lost to UNC-Chapel Hill for some season
-Had a shot at #5 Notre Dame - Lost
-Lost to unranked Miami
-Then (and most importantly), they still got a shot at #2 Clemson in the CCG, and were promptly destroyed.

Pitt was unranked by the time the selection committee made their playoff rankings. If any of those things, particularly Pitt losing the ACC championship game, go the other way, UCF finishes better than 8th.

Counter Point.

Two loss Michigan finishing a spot higher than UCF in the final CFP rankings, despite just giving up 62 points in a blow out loss, shows that there is still bias in a committee that was composed of 77% membership with ties to "Power" 5 conferences.

People who think that a G5 team won't regularly be pushed down a spot or two (using every imaginable argument, no matter how weak) don't understand the level of greed in college football.

There are between 30 million and 90 million reasons every year for each "Power" 5 conference to do everything they can to keep the G5 out as often as possible. That's the amount of money they could lose EVERY year if they lost their justification for uneven distribution of CFB Playoff $$. And that's using the current $ value of the CFP (not the potentially increased $ value of an expanded playoff).

If an 8 team playoff is determined by a BCS style formula, then fine, take the top 8 teams from that formula. Otherwise, the G5 needs to have a guaranteed spot if teams are decided by a subjective, biased committee.

If Uconn, Umass, Liberty and Army began recruiting, I bet they could possibly come up with a few people wanting to form something new. I mean, how happy is ODU, Charlotte, Buffalo and a few others? Do they really want to travel down through the south and west?

(07-30-2019 12:47 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:34 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:31 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  c) If we can't produce a top 8 team, then we have no business being in the playoff.

Top 8 by who's criteria? The current committee that's almost entirely beholden to the P5? Good luck with that.

Wasn't Houston in the 5-6 range before pooing the bed a few years back? I wouldn't judge the committee's future seedings based on their treatment of UCF, who has had terrible schedules the last few years. I feel like a good team with the right schedule from the AAC gets in (to the top 8, probably not the top 4).

Hell, I think UCF can get into the top 8 this year if Stanford wins the PAC and Pitt is halfway competitive again.

Other AAC teams that could crack the top 8 with a run this year:
Cincinnati (assuming Ohio State competes for the Big10 crown)
Houston (if Oklahoma wins the Big 12)
USF and Tulane would be long shots. The P5 teams they beat would have to win their conferences.

You get the trend. What the top committee teams have in common is that they played and beat top 10 teams. Houston did that, and the teams above have a chance to do that.

Not in the CFP Committee rankings. No G5 has ever been ranked that high by the CFP Committee. Houston was that high in the human polls (2011 & 2016)---but 2011 was pre-selection committee and in 2016 that high human poll ranking was early in the year before the Committee had issued any rankings for that season.

1. UConn AD repeating party line that their current situation is everyone else’s fault. Not buying the travel distance argument just like I’m not buying the American is hurting recruiting argument.
2. To eliminate bias in the playoff, simply put in the 10 conference champs. That would create a playoff based on performance not perception. If some at-large teams are added, I’m ok with it. I’ve always liked 16.

(07-30-2019 01:46 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:31 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 11:55 AM)pesik Wrote:  2) says he thinks the playoff will eventually expand to 8 (not realistic to stay at 4). and thinks there will be a spot for the g5 but notes that it is only 1 spot for 60 teams, not great odds, then they'll be put against the top seed every year. and that's if its not an all at-large playoff which would be worse... how that's not ideal, he doesn't think its a legitimate shot, nothing to plan a future around

A couple of thoughts on this:

1) How does he know that there will be a G5 slot in the 8-team playoff if nothing has been decided yet?

2) I'd rather see an at-large system than a guaranteed spot (assuming none of the other conferences have a guaranteed spot). Reasoning?
a) it seems like a handout, and whatever team we field will be sold as a wellfare slot.
b) If we can produce the 6th or 7th best team, I don't want to be automatically slotted in the 8-spot.
c) If we can't produce a top 8 team, then we have no business being in the playoff.

counter, no g5 has ever cracked the top 10 of the cfp ever....even if they were top 10 in the AP/Coaches...

we wont be given a fair shake without some auto bid...not with a committee style selection system

Houston would have, the year they beat OK and Louisville, if they hadn't lost in AAC play down the stretch. It is beneficial to play a strong OOC schedule.

I'm fine with a top 8 with no auto bids. But, I'd prefer getting rid of the committee. They have agendas. Use an updated BCS formula to pick the top 8. Using the computers takes away human biases. Guarantee we'd be ranked higher in the computers too, than the committee.

No autobids. What happens when a 20th ranked Pac 12 team (will happen) gets in. No way.

I dont care if number 20 gets in. The rankings are just opinions. If #20 wins the Pac12---then they won their way into the playoff. The poll and ranking snobs can just deal with it. Scoreboard wins over opinions. Same for the G5---if there isnt a guaranteed slot--then you can bet the same Committee overloaded with P5 reps will place a P5 at #8 and the top G5 at #9 citing "strength of schedule".

There are simply too many inequities in school schedules and conferences to rely totally on a subjective ranking system where winning every game is insufficient to make the playoff. There needs to be a way to win your way in as well as an opinion based metric. The 5+1+2 method is not perfect---but its the method that solves the most problems and seems to be accepted as the most reasonable solution by most fans and writers.

(07-30-2019 02:18 PM)vick mike Wrote:  2. To eliminate bias in the playoff, simply put in the 10 conference champs. That would create a playoff based on performance not perception. If some at-large teams are added, I’m ok with it. I’ve always liked 16.

I don't see 16 team playoff in the future for FBS. The regular season would have to be reduced back to 11 games. That's not going to happen.

(07-30-2019 02:13 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:58 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:31 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 11:55 AM)pesik Wrote:  2) says he thinks the playoff will eventually expand to 8 (not realistic to stay at 4). and thinks there will be a spot for the g5 but notes that it is only 1 spot for 60 teams, not great odds, then they'll be put against the top seed every year. and that's if its not an all at-large playoff which would be worse... how that's not ideal, he doesn't think its a legitimate shot, nothing to plan a future around

A couple of thoughts on this:

1) How does he know that there will be a G5 slot in the 8-team playoff if nothing has been decided yet?

2) I'd rather see an at-large system than a guaranteed spot (assuming none of the other conferences have a guaranteed spot). Reasoning?
a) it seems like a handout, and whatever team we field will be sold as a wellfare slot.
b) If we can produce the 6th or 7th best team, I don't want to be automatically slotted in the 8-spot.
c) If we can't produce a top 8 team, then we have no business being in the playoff.

counter, no g5 has ever cracked the top 10 of the cfp ever....even if they were top 10 in the AP/Coaches...

we wont be given a fair shake without some auto bid...not with a committee style selection system

Counter: UCF was 8th when the playoff teams were selected last year, with a garbage OOC schedule.

Their resume almost entirely depended on Pitt's resume:
-Had a shot at #13 Penn State - Lost
-Lost to UNC-Chapel Hill for some season
-Had a shot at #5 Notre Dame - Lost
-Lost to unranked Miami
-Then (and most importantly), they still got a shot at #2 Clemson in the CCG, and were promptly destroyed.

Pitt was unranked by the time the selection committee made their playoff rankings. If any of those things, particularly Pitt losing the ACC championship game, go the other way, UCF finishes better than 8th.

Counter Point.

Two loss Michigan finishing a spot higher than UCF in the final CFP rankings, despite just giving up 62 points in a blow out loss, shows that there is still bias in a committee that was composed of 77% membership with ties to "Power" 5 conferences.

People who think that a G5 team won't regularly be pushed down a spot or two (using every imaginable argument, no matter how weak) don't understand the level of greed in college football.

There are between 30 million and 90 million reasons every year for each "Power" 5 conference to do everything they can to keep the G5 out as often as possible. That's the amount of money they could lose EVERY year if they lost their justification for uneven distribution of CFB Playoff $$. And that's using the current $ value of the CFP (not the potentially increased $ value of an expanded playoff).

If an 8 team playoff is determined by a BCS style formula, then fine, take the top 8 teams from that formula. Otherwise, the G5 needs to have a guaranteed spot if teams are decided by a subjective, biased committee.

That's not a counter point... That is a fact... If they wouldn't be called out on their BIASED they would never rank any non AQ in the top 10.

(07-30-2019 01:38 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 01:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Without coming right out and saying it----the picture he is painting sure sounds like he thinks FCS is a better place for UConn (more regional with a better chance to win a national title). Still, it seems like he is leaving the door open to possibly joining a very regional G5 type league, even though he apparently doesnt believe the non-power conference role in any expanded playoff will be worth sticking around for. He clearly thinks significant reorganization of much of the G5 is coming.

I think you're right but there is no regional G5 league for UCONN. The MAC is the closest thing but doubt they're interested. Time to join New Hampshire and Maine in the CAA?

I think he believes a reorganization of the G5 might end with some sort of reasonably regional east coast league they might could be part of.

(07-30-2019 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 01:38 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 01:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Without coming right out and saying it----the picture he is painting sure sounds like he thinks FCS is a better place for UConn (more regional with a better chance to win a national title). Still, it seems like he is leaving the door open to possibly joining a very regional G5 type league, even though he apparently doesnt believe the non-power conference role in any expanded playoff will be worth sticking around for. He clearly thinks significant reorganization of much of the G5 is coming.

I think you're right but there is no regional G5 league for UCONN. The MAC is the closest thing but doubt they're interested. Time to join New Hampshire and Maine in the CAA?

I think he believes a reorganization of the G5 might end with some sort of reasonably regional east coast league they might could be part of.

Maybe. I think there's enough inventory to build an all sports east coast league without the need of UMASS or UCONN FB only.

(07-30-2019 01:57 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Ive been (and so have many) that expansion is basically dead and restructuring is what will happen.

This is why I have said that the only moves I can see happen will be B12 based. There is exactly 1 conference that can expand and its the Big 10. If and only if Texas and OU want to go there, then the financials would work out. Outside of that, I dont see any P5 pieces moving anytime soon.

The only reason i think the Texas move may happen is that it benefits the right people.
1. ESPN can get rid of the LHN by using it as a wedge to get a piece of the Big 10 contract. They wanted more and didnt get it. They can hold up any texas move since the LHN runs well past 2025.
2. The Big 10 only has maybe 2-3 teams that can add value to their conference and Texas/OU are 2 of them.
3. If you add up all the value of the rest of the Big 12, its not comparable to what Texas and OU are. ESPN can keep the Big 12 leftovers together and add in a few key teams to keep that conference alive for a fraction of the future costs. Texas and OU are gonna want the elite level of money and if they dont move to a tiered system in teh B12, then someone would have to overpay for the Leftover 8 in order to get them. It makes more sense to move Texas and OU to the Big 10 and pay the leftovers less.

In the end, I think you may see the P5 kinda become a P4, with a weakened Big 12 and then the last decent pieces of the MWC and AAC merge into the 6th conference. The rest will be relegated down. About 80 teams will remain at the top.

Basically the same thing Ive been preaching for a while. The money just doesnt work for expansion anymore---mainly because each P5 conference is getting about 90 million a year from the CFP---that money DOES NOT expand when you add new teams. Only media value expands with additional schools.

Thus, a new school must bring enough MEDIA ONLY VALUE to equal almost an entire conference distribution share (not just a full media share). In other words, you need to have 40-50+ million in "media ONLY" value just to make expansion BREAK EVEN. You'd need an additional 15 million in "media only" value over and above the break even figure to make expansion actually increase each schools payout by just one million dollars a year (for the SEC/ACC/Big10). Now your talking 50-60 million in media value. Like you said---maybe Texas and Oklahoma can meet that bar. No G5 is even close.

Thats why I keep saying, we may as well get comfortable. Most, if not all, of us are likely going to be here a while.