(08-02-2019 01:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The ONLY way I think the G5 would ever sign-off on a G5 playoff is if the big boy playoff included a spot for the top ranked G5 champion.

Then they MIGHT agree but even then I think it would be a scuffle unless it was marketed as a football NIT and could get some P5's involved.

Bowl games would still be more appealing to everyone involved than a CFB NIT. As you said, there's no reason for the G5 champs to want it if it's a G5-only deal, and there's also no reason for a P5 team that narrowly missed a playoff spot to want to play in that NIT instead of a CFP bowl game.

If it paid 6 million a game---there might be a desire to play in it. If its open to everyone---it might be ok---but a G5 only deal is a very bad idea for the G5 to embrace.

Iam all for a A5 32 team exclusive, really I hope this happens so that the other 96 teams can just get on with playing real football playoffs and a real national championship, you know one that is decided on the grid iron then let’s see which one the fans like the most

The G5 win a lot of these, is that why he doesn’t want P vs G?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(08-02-2019 01:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The 5-1 proposal is Mack Brown's alone. There are too many logistical problems. The Playoff Bowls have to be after Christmas. The reason has to do with why the Bowls exist, for tourism, and people are not likely to go to Bowls before Christmas and stay any length of time (this is why the lesser G5 Bowls are before Christmas, the P5 after).

The 5 is a given. CCGs are losing value and interest rapidly. The B12 had to settle for $10M for the three games CBS bailed out on, whereas the prior ones were for $20M. That is a warning shot to all the P5 that their CCGs need to matter or else they are glorified exhibitions; tOSU even went to the playoff once as the B1G rep without going to the CCG! Playing for an automatic playoff berth would make all 5 CCGs must watch TV, especially with ending divisions and sending the best two. That means more value and money for all the P5 they don't have to share.

There is also the political side. To get the SEC to agree, the playoffs needs to have 3 at-large so the SEC can pretty much guarantee a 2nd school, ditto B1G most years.

The 5-1-2 will be pushed for hard by the American, possibly with some support from the MWC. But I don't think it'll happen, to rather if it does, it will require the G5 school be in the top 10. Only last year's UCF team managed that. But it's hard to see the P5 agreeing to hand over a slot of Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida State or UCLA to a G5 school. The P5 do not need any G5 votes to pass this, so 5-3 will win the day. But I can see a top 10 ranking rule that might have benefited UCF.

The access will still be there, and the lowest of the 11 P5 ranked schools will still wind up against the top G5 in the bogey prize game. It is more valuable than a G5 playoff. The 9th and 10th get the miss congeniality consolation bowl as usual. And there will still be a 7th Bowl grabbing up the 12th and 13th or 14th best P5 which is vying to get in the NY6.

The G5 playoff may happen. But I think it'll be for 2nd to 5th conference champions. I can't see the American signing on, and I can't see this G5 CG paying out more than the NY6 access Bowl. Nobody will want to host the G5 Championship game, although the first round playoffs would see a gaggle of pre-Christmas Bowls interested.

The ONLY way I think the G5 would ever sign-off on a G5 playoff is if the big boy playoff included a spot for the top ranked G5 champion.

Then they MIGHT agree but even then I think it would be a scuffle unless it was marketed as a football NIT and could get some P5's involved.

Its a hard sell if youre say UNT , investing millions upon millions on facilities. You ain't doing do be Division II.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

His proposal is better than what we have but my preference is the 5-1-2 model with New Years bowls serving as quarter final sites, semi-finals about a week or two later and the final on the a Saturday night before the Pro Bowl.

(08-02-2019 01:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The 5-1 proposal is Mack Brown's alone. There are too many logistical problems. The Playoff Bowls have to be after Christmas. The reason has to do with why the Bowls exist, for tourism, and people are not likely to go to Bowls before Christmas and stay any length of time (this is why the lesser G5 Bowls are before Christmas, the P5 after).

The 5 is a given. CCGs are losing value and interest rapidly. The B12 had to settle for $10M for the three games CBS bailed out on, whereas the prior ones were for $20M. That is a warning shot to all the P5 that their CCGs need to matter or else they are glorified exhibitions; tOSU even went to the playoff once as the B1G rep without going to the CCG! Playing for an automatic playoff berth would make all 5 CCGs must watch TV, especially with ending divisions and sending the best two. That means more value and money for all the P5 they don't have to share.

There is also the political side. To get the SEC to agree, the playoffs needs to have 3 at-large so the SEC can pretty much guarantee a 2nd school, ditto B1G most years.

The 5-1-2 will be pushed for hard by the American, possibly with some support from the MWC. But I don't think it'll happen, to rather if it does, it will require the G5 school be in the top 10. Only last year's UCF team managed that. But it's hard to see the P5 agreeing to hand over a slot of Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida State or UCLA to a G5 school. The P5 do not need any G5 votes to pass this, so 5-3 will win the day. But I can see a top 10 ranking rule that might have benefited UCF.

The access will still be there, and the lowest of the 11 P5 ranked schools will still wind up against the top G5 in the bogey prize game. It is more valuable than a G5 playoff. The 9th and 10th get the miss congeniality consolation bowl as usual. And there will still be a 7th Bowl grabbing up the 12th and 13th or 14th best P5 which is vying to get in the NY6.

The G5 playoff may happen. But I think it'll be for 2nd to 5th conference champions. I can't see the American signing on, and I can't see this G5 CG paying out more than the NY6 access Bowl. Nobody will want to host the G5 Championship game, although the first round playoffs would see a gaggle of pre-Christmas Bowls interested.

I dont like the idea of a cap for the G5 rep simply because it simply provides a motivation for the Selection Committee to continue to under rank the G5 rep to create an extra P5 slot. If they are getting in anyway---you've taken away that motivation (and even if they continue to under rank---its adverse effect is minimized). Furthermore---my whole bias is toward eliminating the "opinion" element as much as possible in the selection criteria. We cant avoid it completely with 10 conferences, 130 schools, and just 8 slots---but we can certainly minimize the role of opinion in the process of filling the playoff bracket.

All good points right there attackcoog

Mack's plan is kind of similar to an 8 team format with P5 champ autobids.

I could go for it if every G5 champ had an autobid to a CFP bowl with a couple more games added. This is better for the G5 than having to set up a separate post season structure.

I think closest you will get to a G5 playoff is after the 5-1-2 format conference champions 7,8,9, and 10 all play each other on New Years as part of CFP TV package. Maybe those games are ESPN2 slotted games.

My proposal is 5-1-2, 4 BCS level games, 2 G5 champions bowl games. Traditional tie-ins for playoff round 1. So for example Rose always host B1G and PAC, Sugar the SEC. The four other new years games are 8 at-large bids with conference preferences. So Peach can select an SEC and ACC if available. Detroit gets one G5 Bowl and I would put the other one in Nashville.

(08-02-2019 01:00 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Except UNC can't even beat instate G5 team ECU and probably will get beat by UCF and App State this year

Oh hush, Larry Fedora couldn’t beat anybody. Check the overall series, pally.

(08-02-2019 02:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  His proposal is better than what we have but my preference is the 5-1-2 model with New Years bowls serving as quarter final sites, semi-finals about a week or two later and the final on the a Saturday night before the Pro Bowl.

Agree, agree, agree.

Although, I have to say I prefer a 5-3.

If you want to argue a 5-1-2, then you have to include Independents with the G5. At that point, it just becomes silly to auto-bid a G5 champ. What if the “best” team is a 9-4 FAU that won C-USA? Should they get in over a 12-1 Houston that lost their CCG or a 11-1 #8 Notre Dame?

Hell to the NO! Too many holes in a G5 auto-bid.

Well, Mack Brown is an idiot for saying these things. Too many P5 schools have been losing to G5 and FCS a lot lately.

(08-02-2019 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, Mack Brown is an idiot for saying these things. Too many P5 schools have been losing to G5 and FCS a lot lately.

And too many FCS have been losing to DII, amirite?!?!

(08-02-2019 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont like the idea of a cap for the G5 rep simply because it simply provides a motivation for the Selection Committee to continue to under rank the G5 rep to create an extra P5 slot. If they are getting in anyway---you've taken away that motivation (and even if they continue to under rank---its adverse effect is minimized). Furthermore---my whole bias is toward eliminating the "opinion" element as much as possible in the selection criteria. We cant avoid it completely with 10 conferences, 130 schools, and just 8 slots---but we can certainly minimize the role of opinion in the process of filling the playoff bracket.

Let's compare the CFP ranking of the highest G5 team with the Massey Composite ranking:

Year .............................. CFP .................... Massey

2018 .............................. 8 ....................... 8
2017 .............................. 12 ...................... 9
2016 .............................. 15 ...................... 12
2015 .............................. 18 ...................... 14
2014 .............................. 20 ...................... 22


Is there a tendency by the CFP to underrate the best G5? Yes. Is it significant enough to worry about? No. Massey says the average ranking of the best G5 team has been 13, the CFP has had them at 14.6. Not enough to matter.

Giving auto-bids to champions doesn't reduce opinion. It just codifies the opinion that if you win a conference you deserve to be in the playoffs. As I've explained, given the nature of college football and how conference champs are determined, that is a very questionable assumption to make.

Straight 8 allows for correction of obvious errors that a rigid rule can't, and in fact the CFP has done a very good job. Comparing the top 8 of Massey with the CFP the past five years in terms of teams that would have made the playoffs, we see .....

2014

Both the same, except the CFP would have Michigan State at #8, Massey would have Ole Miss (MSU at #9).

2015

Same teams.

2016

Same teams.

2017

Same, except CFP would have had USC #8, Massey had Penn State #8 (USC #9).

2018

Same teams.


That's remarkable, really. The CFP has only differed from the MC regarding two hypothetical 8-team playoff spots in 5 years, 38 out of 40 have been the same, and the two where they differ was by one spot, #8 vs #9.

Bottom line is that the CFP has actually done a very good job of ranking the top 8 teams.

(08-02-2019 01:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The 5-1-2 will be pushed for hard by the American, possibly with some support from the MWC. But I don't think it'll happen, to rather if it does, it will require the G5 school be in the top 10. Only last year's UCF team managed that. But it's hard to see the P5 agreeing to hand over a slot of Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida State or UCLA to a G5 school. The P5 do not need any G5 votes to pass this, so 5-3 will win the day. But I can see a top 10 ranking rule that might have benefited UCF.

I agree that a G5 auto-slot in an eight team playoff is unlikely, for the reason you mention. It's also *should* be unlikely, because it doesn't make any sense - it relies on opinion to pick the best G5 when the point of moving to 8 teams is to eliminate opinion.

If the G5 are going to have an auto-slot, it should be earned. Here's how:

If the top G5 is not ranked in the top 8, then we have a G5 playoff to fill the auto-slot. The top-ranked G5 gets a bye, and on say December 10, the two lowest-ranked G5 champs play each other. Then on December 17, the winner of that first-round game plays the highest-ranked G5 champ, while at the same time the #2 and #3 G5 champs play as well. Finally, on December 24, the winners of the December 17 games play in a G5 Championship Game.

The winner of which advances to the 8-team playoff with the P5 champs and the two at-large teams.

That would (a) truly give every FBS team a chance to play their way in, and (b) the extra playoff games would make up for the fact that G5 play systemically weaker schedules than P5.

(08-02-2019 10:33 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  If you were truly about seeing the best football, why wouldn't you just support the 5 highest ranked conference champions rather than champions from 5 predetermined conferences?

Because Mack is an idiot and still living in the BCS era. Apparently he does not get you have to have at least perception everyone has got a shot to avoid the legal pitfalls of the BCS. Thus why we have the CFP because everyone has a shot.

(08-02-2019 10:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 10:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN trial balloon.

Nah---he's said this before a couple of years ago. It was worded a bit differently---but it was basically the same idea. I suspect the 8-team 5-1-2 format will be the final answer. Its not perfect---but its darn close. It allows teams to win their way in and control their own destiny. It supplies actual legit access for the G5. Yet, it still provides 2 slots for the committee to provide a "second chance" route for 2 teams that didnt win their conference---but still excelled against impressively strong schedules. It seems the 5-1-2 basically addresses most of the current issues fairly and reasonably. I just think thats where we will end up and it will probably be like that for a long time with no further expansion.

The 6 team model could be implemented without changing any contracts since there are already three access bowls (6 teams).

Mack Brown is a tool, and the game has pasted him by. I hope App State pulls a Michigan against North Carolina on Sept. 21st.

(08-02-2019 02:13 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-02-2019 01:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The 5-1 proposal is Mack Brown's alone. There are too many logistical problems. The Playoff Bowls have to be after Christmas. The reason has to do with why the Bowls exist, for tourism, and people are not likely to go to Bowls before Christmas and stay any length of time (this is why the lesser G5 Bowls are before Christmas, the P5 after).

The 5 is a given. CCGs are losing value and interest rapidly. The B12 had to settle for $10M for the three games CBS bailed out on, whereas the prior ones were for $20M. That is a warning shot to all the P5 that their CCGs need to matter or else they are glorified exhibitions; tOSU even went to the playoff once as the B1G rep without going to the CCG! Playing for an automatic playoff berth would make all 5 CCGs must watch TV, especially with ending divisions and sending the best two. That means more value and money for all the P5 they don't have to share.

There is also the political side. To get the SEC to agree, the playoffs needs to have 3 at-large so the SEC can pretty much guarantee a 2nd school, ditto B1G most years.

The 5-1-2 will be pushed for hard by the American, possibly with some support from the MWC. But I don't think it'll happen, to rather if it does, it will require the G5 school be in the top 10. Only last year's UCF team managed that. But it's hard to see the P5 agreeing to hand over a slot of Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida State or UCLA to a G5 school. The P5 do not need any G5 votes to pass this, so 5-3 will win the day. But I can see a top 10 ranking rule that might have benefited UCF.

The access will still be there, and the lowest of the 11 P5 ranked schools will still wind up against the top G5 in the bogey prize game. It is more valuable than a G5 playoff. The 9th and 10th get the miss congeniality consolation bowl as usual. And there will still be a 7th Bowl grabbing up the 12th and 13th or 14th best P5 which is vying to get in the NY6.

The G5 playoff may happen. But I think it'll be for 2nd to 5th conference champions. I can't see the American signing on, and I can't see this G5 CG paying out more than the NY6 access Bowl. Nobody will want to host the G5 Championship game, although the first round playoffs would see a gaggle of pre-Christmas Bowls interested.

The ONLY way I think the G5 would ever sign-off on a G5 playoff is if the big boy playoff included a spot for the top ranked G5 champion.

Then they MIGHT agree but even then I think it would be a scuffle unless it was marketed as a football NIT and could get some P5's involved.

Its a hard sell if youre say UNT , investing millions upon millions on facilities. You ain't doing do be Division II.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Yeah, North Texas is not interested in Mack's plan. I'm sure Houston, who has agreed to shell out $4 million a season to Holgorsen, feels the same way. Probably other programs too.

As for UNT's facilities investment, I'm actually excited to be opening our IPF in September, so we can begin our next facilities project.

(08-02-2019 05:39 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Mack Brown is a tool, and the game has pasted him by. I hope App State pulls a Michigan against North Carolina on Sept. 21st.

Unless UNC is ranked #5 like Michigan was back then, it won't really have the same impact. In fact, doesn't UNC have a history of losing to lesser in-state teams?

Fun fact about the Michigan/App State game - it was the first game broadcast by the BTN, so not exactly the showcase the conference was looking for. Maybe UNC vs App State will be a similar early ACCN game?

Also, Michigan and App State did not play again for seven years. When they did, it was App State's first game as an FBS team.