(06-08-2020 02:06 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 01:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that the increased number of schools have hurt the G5. They really don't compete for many of the same players with the P5, so they are spreading the G5 talent around, along with the few P5 level players they recruit.

And the money means they are losing coaches quicker. Some assistants at P5 schools are making more than head coaches at many G5 schools.

The gap between G5/FCS has increased by taking the top 8-10 programs with potential from the FCS level and moving them up to FBS, giving them 22 more scholarships and becoming much more attractive walk-on programs.

For the non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 level the MWC has been the salary standard with salaries in the high six figures+ for a couple of decades. MWC level salaries are now common place in CUSA, SBC and even the MAC where they have a coach making more than 1 million.

G5 has become more of a uniform level with these salaries and also facilities, vastly improved at nearly every G5 school over the past 2 decades.

However I do agree when you have 19 CFB coaches making 5 million+ its unsustainable for any G5 to compete with that. Ten years ago when 2.5 million was considered a big CFB salary the potential to pay 1.5 million at a place like Boise State and be within striking distance there was still a chance but now Boise State paying 1.8 million is clearly accepting a second tier pay structure.

Houston with Dana Holgorsen has the 37th highest paid coach at 3.7 million. The next highest paid G5 coach is Memphis 56th with Mike Norvell at 2.7 million. Its become very tough to stay within a standard deviation of the highest paid coaches in the G5 when these are by and large not land grant schools and facing political pressure due to their regional missions to keep costs down.

...and yet in spite of all that, 7 G5 schools finished in the AP top 25 last season!

All bunched up in the second half of the standings though which shows how broken the system is.

With the playoff taking the 4 best (4 best schedules) there isn't a developmental ladder to contending for the NC for the G5. That is why I think if/when they move to 8 it would make sense to expand to a NY8 and give every G5 champ an access bowl if they want to continue to have some semblance of an integrated FBS division.

(06-08-2020 02:01 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 02:06 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 01:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that the increased number of schools have hurt the G5. They really don't compete for many of the same players with the P5, so they are spreading the G5 talent around, along with the few P5 level players they recruit.

And the money means they are losing coaches quicker. Some assistants at P5 schools are making more than head coaches at many G5 schools.

The gap between G5/FCS has increased by taking the top 8-10 programs with potential from the FCS level and moving them up to FBS, giving them 22 more scholarships and becoming much more attractive walk-on programs.

For the non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 level the MWC has been the salary standard with salaries in the high six figures+ for a couple of decades. MWC level salaries are now common place in CUSA, SBC and even the MAC where they have a coach making more than 1 million.

G5 has become more of a uniform level with these salaries and also facilities, vastly improved at nearly every G5 school over the past 2 decades.

However I do agree when you have 19 CFB coaches making 5 million+ its unsustainable for any G5 to compete with that. Ten years ago when 2.5 million was considered a big CFB salary the potential to pay 1.5 million at a place like Boise State and be within striking distance there was still a chance but now Boise State paying 1.8 million is clearly accepting a second tier pay structure.

Houston with Dana Holgorsen has the 37th highest paid coach at 3.7 million. The next highest paid G5 coach is Memphis 56th with Mike Norvell at 2.7 million. Its become very tough to stay within a standard deviation of the highest paid coaches in the G5 when these are by and large not land grant schools and facing political pressure due to their regional missions to keep costs down.

...and yet in spite of all that, 7 G5 schools finished in the AP top 25 last season!

All bunched up in the second half of the standings though which shows how broken the system is.

With the playoff taking the 4 best (4 best schedules) there isn't a developmental ladder to contending for the NC for the G5. That is why I think if/when they move to 8 it would make sense to expand to a NY8 and give every G5 champ an access bowl if they want to continue to have some semblance of an integrated FBS division.

There's no demand for guaranteeing multiple G5 champs Access Bowls. Nobody would pay for it.

(06-08-2020 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 11:37 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I've posted before and will do so again now.

If, for example, App State finishes 14-0 after having beaten no P5 team and "bumps" a "more deserving" P5 member (maybe even one of my teams from the P5, which would be unlikely, I admit) in the final poll ... I'm not losing sleep for the P5.

Good for App State and the G5.

If App State finishes 14-0, they'd be the second G5 to ever do that, tying 2009 Boise. They'd be among a handful of teams ever to do that. So they'd almost surely finish well inside the final Top 10, probably around #7 or so, like UCF did in 2017.

Maybe even higher, like #5 or so like Boise and TCU and Utah were able to do a decade ago.

Not counting Ivy teams from the 1800s, these are the teams that have gone undefeated with at least 14 wins:

2019 LSU ........... 15-0
2018 Clemson ..... 15-0

2002 Ohio State ... 14-0
2009 Boise ........... 14-0
2009 Alabama ...... 14-0
2010 Auburn ........ 14-0
2013 FSU ............. 14-0

All but Boise won the national title. Boise 2009 finished #4.

Interesting numbers, Quo. thx for sharing.

My point (poorly made) is that a G5 team that seemingly has played a modest schedule at best yet still finishes high in the final polls ... I'm fine with that. I've met some hard-core P5 fans who might put a 14-0 App State 25th in their personal final poll — but maybe not. They simply don't put much stock in the G5 (though their numbers are dwindling nowadays, which is encouraging).

I typically pull for the "little man" in most things in society (particularly in music and sports). So I'm biased (admittedly) toward the G5 when it comes to rankings. But I try to recognize that bias and be fair.

If, for example, my Vanderbilt Commodores finished a year 9-4 and 26th in the final polls to, say, a 12-1 Marshall team that played a so-so slate and finished 25th ... I would be a bit frustrated, true. But I would be happy for Marshall (in this hypothetical), C-USA and the G5. Most fans of P5 programs do not think like this when it comes to their teams related to the G5. In other words, a fan of a P5 program is better able to "psychologically handle" being ranked being another P5 program (in my example) than a G5. I'd rather it be the opposite because, again, I like the little man.

I guess I got this from my Pops, who was born into abject poverty but never gave up and made something of himself. He was a "little man" who refused to let "the man" hold him back.

So I pull for the G5.

Sorry for being long-winded on this post.

(06-08-2020 04:31 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  If, for example, my Vanderbilt Commodores finished a year 9-4 and 26th in the final polls to, say, a 12-1 Marshall team that played a so-so slate and finished 25th ... I would be a bit frustrated, true. But I would be happy for Marshall (in this hypothetical), C-USA and the G5. Most fans of P5 programs do not think like this when it comes to their teams related to the G5.

Eh, I really don't think most Vandy fans would mind that. You go 9-4 and you know you're not going to be ranked high and you know G5 with much better records could be ranked ahead. IMO there'd have to be an extenuating circumstance, like say Vandy beat Marshall H2H, for that frustration to be there.

Now, when you get into the more rarified air, the top 15 or top 10, then yes, I think that P5 reaction to being ranked behind a G5 is much more likely.

(06-08-2020 01:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that the increased number of schools have hurt the G5. They really don't compete for many of the same players with the P5, so they are spreading the G5 talent around, along with the few P5 level players they recruit.

And the money means they are losing coaches quicker. Some assistants at P5 schools are making more than head coaches at many G5 schools.

The gap between G5/FCS has increased by taking the top 8-10 programs with potential from the FCS level and moving them up to FBS, giving them 22 more scholarships and becoming much more attractive walk-on programs.

For the non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 level the MWC has been the salary standard with salaries in the high six figures+ for a couple of decades. MWC level salaries are now common place in CUSA, SBC and even the MAC where they have a coach making more than 1 million.

G5 has become more of a uniform level with these salaries and also facilities, vastly improved at nearly every G5 school over the past 2 decades.

However I do agree when you have 19 CFB coaches making 5 million+ its unsustainable for any G5 to compete with that. Ten years ago when 2.5 million was considered a big CFB salary the potential to pay 1.5 million at a place like Boise State and be within striking distance there was still a chance but now Boise State paying 1.8 million is clearly accepting a second tier pay structure.

Houston with Dana Holgorsen has the 37th highest paid coach at 3.7 million. The next highest paid G5 coach is Memphis 56th with Mike Norvell at 2.7 million. Its become very tough to stay within a standard deviation of the highest paid coaches in the G5 when these are by and large not land grant schools and facing political pressure due to their regional missions to keep costs down.

Silverfield makes $1.75M in his first year deal..tbd, if it’s a good investment for Memphis.

(06-08-2020 05:42 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 01:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that the increased number of schools have hurt the G5. They really don't compete for many of the same players with the P5, so they are spreading the G5 talent around, along with the few P5 level players they recruit.

And the money means they are losing coaches quicker. Some assistants at P5 schools are making more than head coaches at many G5 schools.

The gap between G5/FCS has increased by taking the top 8-10 programs with potential from the FCS level and moving them up to FBS, giving them 22 more scholarships and becoming much more attractive walk-on programs.

For the non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 level the MWC has been the salary standard with salaries in the high six figures+ for a couple of decades. MWC level salaries are now common place in CUSA, SBC and even the MAC where they have a coach making more than 1 million.

G5 has become more of a uniform level with these salaries and also facilities, vastly improved at nearly every G5 school over the past 2 decades.

However I do agree when you have 19 CFB coaches making 5 million+ its unsustainable for any G5 to compete with that. Ten years ago when 2.5 million was considered a big CFB salary the potential to pay 1.5 million at a place like Boise State and be within striking distance there was still a chance but now Boise State paying 1.8 million is clearly accepting a second tier pay structure.

Houston with Dana Holgorsen has the 37th highest paid coach at 3.7 million. The next highest paid G5 coach is Memphis 56th with Mike Norvell at 2.7 million. Its become very tough to stay within a standard deviation of the highest paid coaches in the G5 when these are by and large not land grant schools and facing political pressure due to their regional missions to keep costs down.

Silverfield makes $1.75M in his first year deal..tbd, if it’s a good investment for Memphis.

So you've gone from paying 2 levels down from what Clemson/Alabama are paying to 3 levels down.

Not that I think its a bad for Memphis but its Mid Major money. Its right around what FAU and UAB are paying.

(06-08-2020 06:17 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 05:42 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 01:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that the increased number of schools have hurt the G5. They really don't compete for many of the same players with the P5, so they are spreading the G5 talent around, along with the few P5 level players they recruit.

And the money means they are losing coaches quicker. Some assistants at P5 schools are making more than head coaches at many G5 schools.

The gap between G5/FCS has increased by taking the top 8-10 programs with potential from the FCS level and moving them up to FBS, giving them 22 more scholarships and becoming much more attractive walk-on programs.

For the non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 level the MWC has been the salary standard with salaries in the high six figures+ for a couple of decades. MWC level salaries are now common place in CUSA, SBC and even the MAC where they have a coach making more than 1 million.

G5 has become more of a uniform level with these salaries and also facilities, vastly improved at nearly every G5 school over the past 2 decades.

However I do agree when you have 19 CFB coaches making 5 million+ its unsustainable for any G5 to compete with that. Ten years ago when 2.5 million was considered a big CFB salary the potential to pay 1.5 million at a place like Boise State and be within striking distance there was still a chance but now Boise State paying 1.8 million is clearly accepting a second tier pay structure.

Houston with Dana Holgorsen has the 37th highest paid coach at 3.7 million. The next highest paid G5 coach is Memphis 56th with Mike Norvell at 2.7 million. Its become very tough to stay within a standard deviation of the highest paid coaches in the G5 when these are by and large not land grant schools and facing political pressure due to their regional missions to keep costs down.

Silverfield makes $1.75M in his first year deal..tbd, if it’s a good investment for Memphis.

So you've gone from paying 2 levels down from what Clemson/Alabama are paying to 3 levels down.

Not that I think its a bad for Memphis but its Mid Major money. Its right around what FAU and UAB are paying.

IMO, that’s not bad company for a first year head coach. If he performs, he will be rewarded. I haven’t run into any Memphis FB fans who think Clemson/Alabama is the comp.

ETA: The money’s there if warranted.

(06-08-2020 02:01 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 02:06 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 01:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that the increased number of schools have hurt the G5. They really don't compete for many of the same players with the P5, so they are spreading the G5 talent around, along with the few P5 level players they recruit.

And the money means they are losing coaches quicker. Some assistants at P5 schools are making more than head coaches at many G5 schools.

The gap between G5/FCS has increased by taking the top 8-10 programs with potential from the FCS level and moving them up to FBS, giving them 22 more scholarships and becoming much more attractive walk-on programs.

For the non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 level the MWC has been the salary standard with salaries in the high six figures+ for a couple of decades. MWC level salaries are now common place in CUSA, SBC and even the MAC where they have a coach making more than 1 million.

G5 has become more of a uniform level with these salaries and also facilities, vastly improved at nearly every G5 school over the past 2 decades.

However I do agree when you have 19 CFB coaches making 5 million+ its unsustainable for any G5 to compete with that. Ten years ago when 2.5 million was considered a big CFB salary the potential to pay 1.5 million at a place like Boise State and be within striking distance there was still a chance but now Boise State paying 1.8 million is clearly accepting a second tier pay structure.

Houston with Dana Holgorsen has the 37th highest paid coach at 3.7 million. The next highest paid G5 coach is Memphis 56th with Mike Norvell at 2.7 million. Its become very tough to stay within a standard deviation of the highest paid coaches in the G5 when these are by and large not land grant schools and facing political pressure due to their regional missions to keep costs down.

...and yet in spite of all that, 7 G5 schools finished in the AP top 25 last season!

With the playoff taking the 4 best (4 best schedules) there isn't a developmental ladder to contending for the NC for the G5.

That is why I think if/when they move to 8 it would make sense to expand to a NY8 and give every G5 champ an access bowl if they want to continue to have some semblance of an integrated FBS division.

Could you clarify these points?

The NY6 "access" bowls (12 teams, with the top two bowls matching up the 4 semi-finalists, based on CFP rankings) could be expanded to NY8 without it having any impact on the selection of contenders for the NC game.

Thus, the number of "NY" bowls would seem to be unrelated to the selection of teams that could compete in a national championship game.

If we keep the selection of NC finalists separate from the teams chosen to play in the "NY" access bowls and focus on giving more G5 teams access to a "NY" bowl game, yes, expanding the NY6 to a NY8 would permit more than one G5 team to play in a New Year's (NY) bowl game.

Actually the term "access bowls" seems like a misnomer or a falsehood, because playing in a so-called "access bowl" doesn't give a team "access" to the playoffs in any way whatsoever.

Can we also make it clear that there is a distinction between increasing the CFP playoffs from 4 teams to 8 teams - vs. - increasing the number of NY bowls from 4 to 8?

From the standpoint of the G5, there are two things that are important:

1) The rules for making it into the NY bowls need to be changed, to allow more than one G5 team to play in an NY6 (or NY7 or NY8) bowl.

2) The playoffs need to be expanded from 4 to 8 playoff teams, and at least one of the 8 playoff teams should always be a G5 team.

============================================

Here's one way this could be done:

1) Increase NY6 to NY8 (add another "NY" "access" game), with a total of 16 teams.

2) All 10 FBS conference champions would play in a "NY" bowl. In addition, the 6 most highly ranked teams that were not conference champions could make up the remainder of the 14 NY teams. Those 4 teams would face each other in NY7 bowl games #6, #7, & #8.

NOTE: NY7 bowl games #1 through #5 would be match-ups between the champions of the P5 and G5 conferences (e.g., Clemson vs. Memphis; Oklahoma vs. SDSU, etc.).

3) After the 8 "NY" bowl games are played, 4 of the 8 winners of the "NY" bowls would be selected to play each other as the CFP "final four."

4) At least 3 of the 4 semi-finalist teams would be required to have won their conference championship games, in addition to winning their NY bowl game.

5) CFP rankings data (either regular season CFP rankings or newly computed CFP rankings) would be used to select the CFP "final four" semi-finalists from among the winners of the NY8 bowls.

ADVANTAGES TO SUCH AN EXPANDED NY BOWL AND CFP SYSTEM:

1) It would markedly improve the situation for the G5 conferences, since each FBS conference champion would have a chance to compete for the national championship and play in a "NY bowl" game.

2) It would make all of the FBS conference championship games more meaningful and important than they are at present, since no more than one FBS team in the nation would be permitted to play in the national championship game without winning their conference championship.

3) It would increase the drama of all of the "NY bowl" games, since most of the teams playing in NY bowls would have at least a theoretical chance to advance

4) Such a system would benefit the P5, as well as the G5, because the number of P5 teams that could have a chance to make their way into the CFP final four would increase from only 4 P5 CFP teams (at present) to as many as 8 P5 CFP teams.

5) Although the P5 conferences might not welcome the inclusion of the G5 in the CFP series, they would retain most of their current advantages:

(a) The P5 conference champs would generally be favored to win most, if not all of the "NY bowl" games.

(b) The 6 participating teams that would be selected to play a NY bowl, based on their CFP rankings, would almost always tend to be P5 teams, since the only way a G5 team could make it into that group would be by failing to win its conference championship game, yet somehow being ranked among the top 12-15 teams in the nation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(06-04-2020 07:25 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  There's also another way to look at the P5 vs. G5 situation - - focusing on the upper tier of G5 teams.

Since the P5-G5 split occurred, when one examines the final AP top 25 rankings, there has been a trend toward more G5 teams in the final AP rankings over the past 7 years.

In 2013, there were 0 non-P5 teams in the final AP top 25:

In 2019, there were 7 non-P5 teams in the final AP top 25:


2013: 0

2014: 3 (Boise, Marshall, & Memphis)

2015: 2 (Navy & WKU)

2016: 3 (WMU, USF, & SDSU)

2017: 3 (USF, Boise, & Memphis)

2018: 5 (Fresno St., Army Utah St., Boise St., & Cincinnati)

2019: 7 (Memphis, App St, Navy, Cincy, Air Force, Boise, & UCF)

This is wrong, UCF finished ranked in 2013, 2017, 2018 & 2019. I'm not going to look for other inaccuracies.

(06-08-2020 02:01 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 02:06 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 01:52 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that the increased number of schools have hurt the G5. They really don't compete for many of the same players with the P5, so they are spreading the G5 talent around, along with the few P5 level players they recruit.

And the money means they are losing coaches quicker. Some assistants at P5 schools are making more than head coaches at many G5 schools.

The gap between G5/FCS has increased by taking the top 8-10 programs with potential from the FCS level and moving them up to FBS, giving them 22 more scholarships and becoming much more attractive walk-on programs.

For the non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 level the MWC has been the salary standard with salaries in the high six figures+ for a couple of decades. MWC level salaries are now common place in CUSA, SBC and even the MAC where they have a coach making more than 1 million.

G5 has become more of a uniform level with these salaries and also facilities, vastly improved at nearly every G5 school over the past 2 decades.

However I do agree when you have 19 CFB coaches making 5 million+ its unsustainable for any G5 to compete with that. Ten years ago when 2.5 million was considered a big CFB salary the potential to pay 1.5 million at a place like Boise State and be within striking distance there was still a chance but now Boise State paying 1.8 million is clearly accepting a second tier pay structure.

Houston with Dana Holgorsen has the 37th highest paid coach at 3.7 million. The next highest paid G5 coach is Memphis 56th with Mike Norvell at 2.7 million. Its become very tough to stay within a standard deviation of the highest paid coaches in the G5 when these are by and large not land grant schools and facing political pressure due to their regional missions to keep costs down.

...and yet in spite of all that, 7 G5 schools finished in the AP top 25 last season!

All bunched up in the second half of the standings though which shows how broken the system is.

With the playoff taking the 4 best (4 best schedules) there isn't a developmental ladder to contending for the NC for the G5. That is why I think if/when they move to 8 it would make sense to expand to a NY8 and give every G5 champ an access bowl if they want to continue to have some semblance of an integrated FBS division.

Or the AAC could be given back it's power status that was stripped away with the name change. Restructure the CFP to 8 with autobids for the P6 conference champs & 2 at large/wild card bids. That would solve a lot of these issues. The current CFP didn't create a P5/G5 split it created a 5-8 teams/everyone else split.