nachoman91
All American
Posts: 2,795
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 63
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
Here's why the AAC doesn't want Boise. If Boise goes out and wins the AAC then that's the only team from the conference getting in the playoff. There's really no way they'll allow two teams from the AAC. But if Boise goes undefeated in the MWC and UC goes undefeated in the AAC, its likely both teams get it.
As for making it an autobid if you go undefeated, that's a bad idea. What you'll see happening is every school scheduling just for wins and there will end of being undefeated teams whose toughest game was against St Peters School for the Blind.
|
|
06-08-2021 01:28 PM |
|
BearcatMan
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
Posts: 24,206
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 590
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-08-2021 01:28 PM)nachoman91 Wrote: Here's why the AAC doesn't want Boise. If Boise goes out and wins the AAC then that's the only team from the conference getting in the playoff. There's really no way they'll allow two teams from the AAC. But if Boise goes undefeated in the MWC and UC goes undefeated in the AAC, its likely both teams get it.
As for making it an autobid if you go undefeated, that's a bad idea. What you'll see happening is every school scheduling just for wins and there will end of being undefeated teams whose toughest game was against St Peters School for the Blind.
Would you rather have 100% chance at a full CFP cut, or a less than 100% chance at a full CFP cut? I know what I'd choose...which means IF adding Boise/BYU/School #3 does give us that 100% chance, then it should be done in a heartbeat.
|
|
06-08-2021 01:39 PM |
|
doss2
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,610
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 141
I Root For: BEARCATS
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
8-9 winner plays 1
7-10 winner plays 2
6-11 winner plays 3
5-12 winner plays 4
First round games at home of higher ranked.
8/9 vs 1 in bowl, etc. That is 4 bowls.
Semis in 2 bowls.
So top 6 bowls, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Rose, Cotton, Peach used in rotation.
Would first round losers be able to go to: Outback, Liberty, etc.?
|
|
06-08-2021 01:46 PM |
|
Bruce Monnin
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11,556
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 157
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Minster, Ohio
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-08-2021 01:46 PM)doss2 Wrote: Would first round losers be able to go to: Outback, Liberty, etc.?
Would they want to?
|
|
06-08-2021 03:29 PM |
|
robertfoshizzle
Heisman
Posts: 6,981
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 273
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Columbus
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
In the 12-team playoff scenario, assuming CFP rankings remained the same, we still would have played Georgia in our first bowl game. Rumors are those 5-12 first round games could be at the higher-seeded team's home stadium, which means we would have hosted Georgia at Nippert. Even with Hudson's ejection and the questionable 4th and 2 play call I've been trying to erase from my memory, I'd like our chances better at Nippert. Of course, less Georgia players would have opted out, so that could have been a factor as well. Probably would have still been a really competitive game, with the winner going on to play Alabama.
Could Cincinnati in its current state win the CFP? Probably not. But if we have access, and win a playoff game or at least be competitive in one, I think a lot of recruiting opportunities would open up to us. If we make the jump from top-50 recruiting classes to top-25 recruiting classes, we could win it all with the right QB.
|
|
06-08-2021 03:42 PM |
|
robertfoshizzle
Heisman
Posts: 6,981
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 273
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Columbus
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
If they don't do the first round games at the home team's site, I think it would be neat to pull in the next 4-oldest bowls for tradition's sake. That would keep the historic bowls all alive and well:
First Round (5 vs. 12, 6 vs. 11, 7 vs. 10, 8 vs. 9): Citrus Bowl, Gator Bowl, Liberty Bowl, Sun Bowl
Quarterfinals (4 games) and Semifinals (2 games): Cotton Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, Peach Bowl, Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl. These can be rotated just like they are now, except the quarterfinal games would replace the NY6 games.
Championship: rotating at NFL domes like now
I'd love for them to go back to some sort of computer ranking system, but I know they won't due to $$$. As long as there is a G5 auto bid, I'll be reasonably happy -- although I prefer an AAC auto bid, and if there is even a remote possibility of that, I'm on board with adding/subtracting whatever teams necessary to make it happen.
|
|
06-08-2021 04:12 PM |
|
C1ncy4Life
All American
Posts: 2,501
Joined: Mar 2019
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-08-2021 01:39 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:28 PM)nachoman91 Wrote: Here's why the AAC doesn't want Boise. If Boise goes out and wins the AAC then that's the only team from the conference getting in the playoff. There's really no way they'll allow two teams from the AAC. But if Boise goes undefeated in the MWC and UC goes undefeated in the AAC, its likely both teams get it.
As for making it an autobid if you go undefeated, that's a bad idea. What you'll see happening is every school scheduling just for wins and there will end of being undefeated teams whose toughest game was against St Peters School for the Blind.
Would you rather have 100% chance at a full CFP cut, or a less than 100% chance at a full CFP cut? I know what I'd choose...which means IF adding Boise/BYU/School #3 does give us that 100% chance, then it should be done in a heartbeat.
Adding BYU, Boise, etc... may also get us close to an autobid specifically for the AAC, while the remaining G4 could still get one. With autobids for the top 6 conference champs and 1 for the G4 you would still only be at 7 bids, leaving 5 at large bids. Seems possible though probably still u likely it’s something that has to be considered and if you are Aresco that has to be what you are fighting for first, with a G5 autobid the consolation prize.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2021 04:23 PM by C1ncy4Life.)
|
|
06-08-2021 04:22 PM |
|
BearcatsUC
Heisman
Posts: 5,817
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 72
I Root For: UC
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(03-24-2021 08:36 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: (03-24-2021 08:33 AM)OKIcat Wrote: The late President Steger, when speaking to alumni or donor groups, talked about his ambitious campus rebuild saying the new buildings were all great but once erected, they made the adjoining ones look bad. He was only half joking--when UC became a full state institution it was quickly evident that the Clifton campus was decades behind the rest of the state universities in terms of needing both new and remodeled buildings.
The billion dollars plus represented in that rebuild created what Forbes and other national publications described as one of the world's most beautiful campuses.
https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/re...orbes.html
While UC won't ever have a marina or golf course as some others do, it is interesting to think about what is still needed; a wish list so to speak. So I'll share three and will be curious if others might add to the list:
1. A large, modern Alumni Center to host visitors, conduct large events, and be a center for alumni life when returning to campus. If you've seen Ohio State's it's very impressive. I don't think it needs to rise to that level but UCAA has no visible presence on campus today. And if some parking, either adjacent or in very close proximity, could be part of the plan I could see alumni wanting to rent space there for their own reunion events, weddings, graduations celebrations, etc..
2. More outdoor student recreation spaces. I understand (but disagree with) the Park Board not wanting varsity sports in Burnet Woods. But UC and the city could collaborate to create shared use facilities for tennis, volleyball or soccer that would make the park better for all.
3. Beyond the campus footprint, bring the streetcar up the hill to UC, Short Vine, the Medical Center, and Children's Hospitals. One reason the streetcar has failed as a transportation link is its limited utility running only from the Banks to OTR. It needed to connect Uptown, OTR, and downtown to be fully functional. Linked to campus, it would be unique in all of Ohio, if not the entire Midwest. And students could easily access jobs, entertainment, and the best of our city without needing a car on the hilltop.
I'm still baffled how that was in every proposal, and was clearly the way to self-sufficiency, but ended up on the cutting room floor. It was clear as day the only way they were going to get enough riders to make that a money maker or at least not a balance sheet anvil was to get students on there.
Baffled? After being approved by the voters TWICE, Kasich (With the urging of Comb Over Chabot ) took federal funds allocated to the project and sent it elsewhere. Lack of funds caused the Clifton leg of the line to be scrapped.
I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2021 05:22 PM by BearcatsUC.)
|
|
06-08-2021 05:21 PM |
|
doss2
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,610
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 141
I Root For: BEARCATS
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote: (03-24-2021 08:36 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: (03-24-2021 08:33 AM)OKIcat Wrote: The late President Steger, when speaking to alumni or donor groups, talked about his ambitious campus rebuild saying the new buildings were all great but once erected, they made the adjoining ones look bad. He was only half joking--when UC became a full state institution it was quickly evident that the Clifton campus was decades behind the rest of the state universities in terms of needing both new and remodeled buildings.
The billion dollars plus represented in that rebuild created what Forbes and other national publications described as one of the world's most beautiful campuses.
https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/re...orbes.html
While UC won't ever have a marina or golf course as some others do, it is interesting to think about what is still needed; a wish list so to speak. So I'll share three and will be curious if others might add to the list:
1. A large, modern Alumni Center to host visitors, conduct large events, and be a center for alumni life when returning to campus. If you've seen Ohio State's it's very impressive. I don't think it needs to rise to that level but UCAA has no visible presence on campus today. And if some parking, either adjacent or in very close proximity, could be part of the plan I could see alumni wanting to rent space there for their own reunion events, weddings, graduations celebrations, etc..
2. More outdoor student recreation spaces. I understand (but disagree with) the Park Board not wanting varsity sports in Burnet Woods. But UC and the city could collaborate to create shared use facilities for tennis, volleyball or soccer that would make the park better for all.
3. Beyond the campus footprint, bring the streetcar up the hill to UC, Short Vine, the Medical Center, and Children's Hospitals. One reason the streetcar has failed as a transportation link is its limited utility running only from the Banks to OTR. It needed to connect Uptown, OTR, and downtown to be fully functional. Linked to campus, it would be unique in all of Ohio, if not the entire Midwest. And students could easily access jobs, entertainment, and the best of our city without needing a car on the hilltop.
I'm still baffled how that was in every proposal, and was clearly the way to self-sufficiency, but ended up on the cutting room floor. It was clear as day the only way they were going to get enough riders to make that a money maker or at least not a balance sheet anvil was to get students on there.
Baffled? After being approved by the voters TWICE, Kasich (With the urging of Comb Over Chabot ) took federal funds allocated to the project and sent it elsewhere. Lack of funds caused the Clifton leg of the line to be scrapped.
I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.
I am sure the thousands of downtown residents would want to street car to Children's and University Hospital.
|
|
06-08-2021 07:51 PM |
|
ah59396
1st String
Posts: 1,619
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 181
I Root For: App State
Location: Outside
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-08-2021 04:22 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:39 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:28 PM)nachoman91 Wrote: Here's why the AAC doesn't want Boise. If Boise goes out and wins the AAC then that's the only team from the conference getting in the playoff. There's really no way they'll allow two teams from the AAC. But if Boise goes undefeated in the MWC and UC goes undefeated in the AAC, its likely both teams get it.
As for making it an autobid if you go undefeated, that's a bad idea. What you'll see happening is every school scheduling just for wins and there will end of being undefeated teams whose toughest game was against St Peters School for the Blind.
Would you rather have 100% chance at a full CFP cut, or a less than 100% chance at a full CFP cut? I know what I'd choose...which means IF adding Boise/BYU/School #3 does give us that 100% chance, then it should be done in a heartbeat.
Adding BYU, Boise, etc... may also get us close to an autobid specifically for the AAC, while the remaining G4 could still get one. With autobids for the top 6 conference champs and 1 for the G4 you would still only be at 7 bids, leaving 5 at large bids. Seems possible though probably still u likely it’s something that has to be considered and if you are Aresco that has to be what you are fighting for first, with a G5 autobid the consolation prize.
This is a scenario I could see occurring. And one that may appease all parties. A conditional AQ offering for the AAC could occur. Say the powers that be agree, “add Boise, BYU + whoever, and you’ll get your AQ”. This condition would almost certainly appeal to both Boise and BYU, BYU especially given their belief they are a Power 5 team without a home. If they knew the AQ would occur, I suspect they would commit.
And from my App State G5 perspective, I’d be happy to have an opportunity to make the CFP, which this would offer. And is an outcome we should all want. If you have a stellar year, as you all did last season, you deserve a shot. Doesn’t seem like an unreasonable ask.
|
|
06-08-2021 10:45 PM |
|
Bearhawkeye
The King of Breakfast
Posts: 13,723
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Zinzinnati
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
|
|
06-08-2021 11:22 PM |
|
BearcatJerry
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12,101
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 506
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-08-2021 03:29 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:46 PM)doss2 Wrote: Would first round losers be able to go to: Outback, Liberty, etc.?
Would they want to?
Compared to Birmingham, Frisco, or Fenway Park?
Hell yes.
|
|
06-09-2021 05:30 AM |
|
BearcatMan
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
Posts: 24,206
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 590
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-09-2021 05:30 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: (06-08-2021 03:29 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:46 PM)doss2 Wrote: Would first round losers be able to go to: Outback, Liberty, etc.?
Would they want to?
Compared to Birmingham, Frisco, or Fenway Park?
Hell yes.
I think he's making the point that those bowls would be worthless consolations akin to the losers of the first round of the basketball tournament playing exhibition games while the rest of the tournament goes on, and that they would make no sense to play...a sentiment I agree with.
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2021 06:18 AM by BearcatMan.)
|
|
06-09-2021 06:18 AM |
|
doss2
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,610
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 141
I Root For: BEARCATS
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-09-2021 06:18 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: (06-09-2021 05:30 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: (06-08-2021 03:29 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:46 PM)doss2 Wrote: Would first round losers be able to go to: Outback, Liberty, etc.?
Would they want to?
Compared to Birmingham, Frisco, or Fenway Park?
Hell yes.
I think he's making the point that those bowls would be worthless consolations akin to the losers of the first round of the basketball tournament playing exhibition games while the rest of the tournament goes on, and that they would make no sense to play...a sentiment I agree with.
Others bowls by payout:
CITRUS $8.5
ALAMO $8.0
OUTBACK $6.4
HOLIDAY $6.3
TEXAS $6.3
CHEEZ IT $5.8
MUSIC CITY $5.7
DUKES MAYO 44.5
LIBERTY $4.2
|
|
06-09-2021 06:55 AM |
|
nachoman91
All American
Posts: 2,795
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 63
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-08-2021 04:22 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:39 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:28 PM)nachoman91 Wrote: Here's why the AAC doesn't want Boise. If Boise goes out and wins the AAC then that's the only team from the conference getting in the playoff. There's really no way they'll allow two teams from the AAC. But if Boise goes undefeated in the MWC and UC goes undefeated in the AAC, its likely both teams get it.
As for making it an autobid if you go undefeated, that's a bad idea. What you'll see happening is every school scheduling just for wins and there will end of being undefeated teams whose toughest game was against St Peters School for the Blind.
Would you rather have 100% chance at a full CFP cut, or a less than 100% chance at a full CFP cut? I know what I'd choose...which means IF adding Boise/BYU/School #3 does give us that 100% chance, then it should be done in a heartbeat.
Adding BYU, Boise, etc... may also get us close to an autobid specifically for the AAC, while the remaining G4 could still get one. With autobids for the top 6 conference champs and 1 for the G4 you would still only be at 7 bids, leaving 5 at large bids. Seems possible though probably still u likely it’s something that has to be considered and if you are Aresco that has to be what you are fighting for first, with a G5 autobid the consolation prize.
There is no way the CFP committee is going to automatically allow any undefeated team into the playoff. If three or four or five G5 teams go undefeated in one year due to weak scheduling and are all put in the playoffs, the P5 schools will go bonkers.
If adding BYU, Boise, etc turns the AAC into an actual P6 conference with a better TV deal and an autobid to the playoff then I'm all for it.
|
|
06-09-2021 07:14 AM |
|
BearcatMan
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
Posts: 24,206
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 590
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-09-2021 07:14 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: (06-08-2021 04:22 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:39 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:28 PM)nachoman91 Wrote: Here's why the AAC doesn't want Boise. If Boise goes out and wins the AAC then that's the only team from the conference getting in the playoff. There's really no way they'll allow two teams from the AAC. But if Boise goes undefeated in the MWC and UC goes undefeated in the AAC, its likely both teams get it.
As for making it an autobid if you go undefeated, that's a bad idea. What you'll see happening is every school scheduling just for wins and there will end of being undefeated teams whose toughest game was against St Peters School for the Blind.
Would you rather have 100% chance at a full CFP cut, or a less than 100% chance at a full CFP cut? I know what I'd choose...which means IF adding Boise/BYU/School #3 does give us that 100% chance, then it should be done in a heartbeat.
Adding BYU, Boise, etc... may also get us close to an autobid specifically for the AAC, while the remaining G4 could still get one. With autobids for the top 6 conference champs and 1 for the G4 you would still only be at 7 bids, leaving 5 at large bids. Seems possible though probably still u likely it’s something that has to be considered and if you are Aresco that has to be what you are fighting for first, with a G5 autobid the consolation prize.
There is no way the CFP committee is going to automatically allow any undefeated team into the playoff. If three or four or five G5 teams go undefeated in one year due to weak scheduling and are all put in the playoffs, the P5 schools will go bonkers.
If adding BYU, Boise, etc turns the AAC into an actual P6 conference with a better TV deal and an autobid to the playoff then I'm all for it.
There have been TWO in the last 24 years with multiple G5 undefeated teams, last year where Covid killed OOC schedules for most teams, and I'm including 2009 in that with us and TCU...I think people fail to realize how unlikely even having one undefeated G5 team is. If you remove the AAC from the equation by making them an auto-bid, you have four times where there was an undefeated G4 team in the last two decades (Boise St. in '06, '08, '09, Hawaii in '07, and Western Michigan in '16), and even three of those times would be covered should Boise be added to the AAC. All I'm saying is that it isn't likely at all that even one G4 team would go undefeated in a season, let alone more than one, and the Power Brokers would love to dangle the carrot that they know, more often than not, they won't have to feed to the G4. Makes the argument moot while still all but excluding them from the party, and all it takes is adding in a team who has had a team entering bowl season with a Top 12 ranked champion in 4/6 seasons.
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2021 07:29 AM by BearcatMan.)
|
|
06-09-2021 07:18 AM |
|
nachoman91
All American
Posts: 2,795
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 63
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-09-2021 07:18 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: (06-09-2021 07:14 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: (06-08-2021 04:22 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:39 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:28 PM)nachoman91 Wrote: Here's why the AAC doesn't want Boise. If Boise goes out and wins the AAC then that's the only team from the conference getting in the playoff. There's really no way they'll allow two teams from the AAC. But if Boise goes undefeated in the MWC and UC goes undefeated in the AAC, its likely both teams get it.
As for making it an autobid if you go undefeated, that's a bad idea. What you'll see happening is every school scheduling just for wins and there will end of being undefeated teams whose toughest game was against St Peters School for the Blind.
Would you rather have 100% chance at a full CFP cut, or a less than 100% chance at a full CFP cut? I know what I'd choose...which means IF adding Boise/BYU/School #3 does give us that 100% chance, then it should be done in a heartbeat.
Adding BYU, Boise, etc... may also get us close to an autobid specifically for the AAC, while the remaining G4 could still get one. With autobids for the top 6 conference champs and 1 for the G4 you would still only be at 7 bids, leaving 5 at large bids. Seems possible though probably still u likely it’s something that has to be considered and if you are Aresco that has to be what you are fighting for first, with a G5 autobid the consolation prize.
There is no way the CFP committee is going to automatically allow any undefeated team into the playoff. If three or four or five G5 teams go undefeated in one year due to weak scheduling and are all put in the playoffs, the P5 schools will go bonkers.
If adding BYU, Boise, etc turns the AAC into an actual P6 conference with a better TV deal and an autobid to the playoff then I'm all for it.
There have been TWO in the last 24 years with multiple G5 undefeated teams, last year where Covid killed OOC schedules for most teams, and I'm including 2009 in that with us and TCU...I think people fail to realize how unlikely even having one undefeated G5 team is.
If you change the rules to allow any undefeated team to make the playoffs you'll see a dramatic shift in scheduling and thus the amount of undefeated teams each year. What incentive would any G5 team have to schedule a high or mid-tier P5 teams if going undefeated is the goal.
|
|
06-09-2021 07:27 AM |
|
BearcatMan
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
Posts: 24,206
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 590
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-09-2021 07:27 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: (06-09-2021 07:18 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: (06-09-2021 07:14 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: (06-08-2021 04:22 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote: (06-08-2021 01:39 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: Would you rather have 100% chance at a full CFP cut, or a less than 100% chance at a full CFP cut? I know what I'd choose...which means IF adding Boise/BYU/School #3 does give us that 100% chance, then it should be done in a heartbeat.
Adding BYU, Boise, etc... may also get us close to an autobid specifically for the AAC, while the remaining G4 could still get one. With autobids for the top 6 conference champs and 1 for the G4 you would still only be at 7 bids, leaving 5 at large bids. Seems possible though probably still u likely it’s something that has to be considered and if you are Aresco that has to be what you are fighting for first, with a G5 autobid the consolation prize.
There is no way the CFP committee is going to automatically allow any undefeated team into the playoff. If three or four or five G5 teams go undefeated in one year due to weak scheduling and are all put in the playoffs, the P5 schools will go bonkers.
If adding BYU, Boise, etc turns the AAC into an actual P6 conference with a better TV deal and an autobid to the playoff then I'm all for it.
There have been TWO in the last 24 years with multiple G5 undefeated teams, last year where Covid killed OOC schedules for most teams, and I'm including 2009 in that with us and TCU...I think people fail to realize how unlikely even having one undefeated G5 team is.
If you change the rules to allow any undefeated team to make the playoffs you'll see a dramatic shift in scheduling and thus the amount of undefeated teams each year. What incentive would any G5 team have to schedule a high or mid-tier P5 teams if going undefeated is the goal.
The fact that those buy games float their operating budgets...there was an article in a Higher Ed journal that outlined just how much those support smaller ADs last year during the pandemic. In 2019, there were 36 FBS programs who had over 30% of their unencumbered operating budgets (non-student fee related revenue) supported by buy game payouts. Dump those bad boys and you may as well move the MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA to FCS.
Fine, how about you allow entry for any any undefeated team with at least two wins against auto-bid conference teams. Done. That's essentially as convoluted as the BCS entry rules for the Big East and we were fine with those.
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2021 07:37 AM by BearcatMan.)
|
|
06-09-2021 07:31 AM |
|
doss2
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,610
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 141
I Root For: BEARCATS
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-09-2021 07:31 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: (06-09-2021 07:27 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: (06-09-2021 07:18 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: (06-09-2021 07:14 AM)nachoman91 Wrote: (06-08-2021 04:22 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote: Adding BYU, Boise, etc... may also get us close to an autobid specifically for the AAC, while the remaining G4 could still get one. With autobids for the top 6 conference champs and 1 for the G4 you would still only be at 7 bids, leaving 5 at large bids. Seems possible though probably still u likely it’s something that has to be considered and if you are Aresco that has to be what you are fighting for first, with a G5 autobid the consolation prize.
There is no way the CFP committee is going to automatically allow any undefeated team into the playoff. If three or four or five G5 teams go undefeated in one year due to weak scheduling and are all put in the playoffs, the P5 schools will go bonkers.
If adding BYU, Boise, etc turns the AAC into an actual P6 conference with a better TV deal and an autobid to the playoff then I'm all for it.
There have been TWO in the last 24 years with multiple G5 undefeated teams, last year where Covid killed OOC schedules for most teams, and I'm including 2009 in that with us and TCU...I think people fail to realize how unlikely even having one undefeated G5 team is.
If you change the rules to allow any undefeated team to make the playoffs you'll see a dramatic shift in scheduling and thus the amount of undefeated teams each year. What incentive would any G5 team have to schedule a high or mid-tier P5 teams if going undefeated is the goal.
The fact that those buy games float their operating budgets...there was an article in a Higher Ed journal that outlined just how much those support smaller ADs last year during the pandemic. In 2019, there were 36 FBS programs who had over 30% of their unencumbered operating budgets (non-student fee related revenue) supported by buy game payouts. Dump those bad boys and you may as well move the MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA to FCS.
Fine, how about you allow entry for any any undefeated team with at least two wins against auto-bid conference teams. Done. That's essentially as convoluted as the BCS entry rules for the Big East and we were fine with those.
Does anyone have stats on the number of undefeated in conference teams occurred in the last 10 or so years? That would gives us an idea if scheduling down would create a lot more undefeated teams.
|
|
06-09-2021 08:09 AM |
|
OKIcat
Heisman
Posts: 6,670
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 191
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
|
RE: All Things Realignment 2.0
(06-08-2021 05:21 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote: (03-24-2021 08:36 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: (03-24-2021 08:33 AM)OKIcat Wrote: The late President Steger, when speaking to alumni or donor groups, talked about his ambitious campus rebuild saying the new buildings were all great but once erected, they made the adjoining ones look bad. He was only half joking--when UC became a full state institution it was quickly evident that the Clifton campus was decades behind the rest of the state universities in terms of needing both new and remodeled buildings.
The billion dollars plus represented in that rebuild created what Forbes and other national publications described as one of the world's most beautiful campuses.
https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/re...orbes.html
While UC won't ever have a marina or golf course as some others do, it is interesting to think about what is still needed; a wish list so to speak. So I'll share three and will be curious if others might add to the list:
1. A large, modern Alumni Center to host visitors, conduct large events, and be a center for alumni life when returning to campus. If you've seen Ohio State's it's very impressive. I don't think it needs to rise to that level but UCAA has no visible presence on campus today. And if some parking, either adjacent or in very close proximity, could be part of the plan I could see alumni wanting to rent space there for their own reunion events, weddings, graduations celebrations, etc..
2. More outdoor student recreation spaces. I understand (but disagree with) the Park Board not wanting varsity sports in Burnet Woods. But UC and the city could collaborate to create shared use facilities for tennis, volleyball or soccer that would make the park better for all.
3. Beyond the campus footprint, bring the streetcar up the hill to UC, Short Vine, the Medical Center, and Children's Hospitals. One reason the streetcar has failed as a transportation link is its limited utility running only from the Banks to OTR. It needed to connect Uptown, OTR, and downtown to be fully functional. Linked to campus, it would be unique in all of Ohio, if not the entire Midwest. And students could easily access jobs, entertainment, and the best of our city without needing a car on the hilltop.
I'm still baffled how that was in every proposal, and was clearly the way to self-sufficiency, but ended up on the cutting room floor. It was clear as day the only way they were going to get enough riders to make that a money maker or at least not a balance sheet anvil was to get students on there.
Baffled? After being approved by the voters TWICE, Kasich (With the urging of Comb Over Chabot ) took federal funds allocated to the project and sent it elsewhere. Lack of funds caused the Clifton leg of the line to be scrapped.
I can’t help but think if that line went through the Short North in Columbus, from Downtown to O$U, there’s not a chance in Hell politicians would have tried to scrap it.
Bolded, I think you're right. When we lived in IN, it was abundantly clear that all money flowed to its state capital in Indianapolis for pretty much whatever that city/county wanted to build. To a lesser extent, we see that with Columbus.
I don't want to "derail" this thread but I will add from what I know, the build out would have also been cheaper in Columbus flatlands with the pathway you described. I don't think the federal funding would have come close to covering the total cost with Cincinnati's topography. As I recall, powering electric streetcars up that big hill into Clifton was going to incur enormous infrastructure spending for Duke Energy and others, re-engineering underground services before the first section of track ever appeared. Duke Energy wasn't going to donate their work; the city didn't have money for that, the county and state weren't interested.
So here we sit with half a loaf: a streetcar that doesn't fulfill much of any transportation need when OTR folks report they can walk or bike to work in the central business district faster. And if it can't run when the temperatures dip below freezing, it's not a reliable year round conveyance in this climate either. Fix that 12 month reliability issue; run it to Uptown and suddenly it's a viable transportation system. Will that ever happen in our lifetimes? Who knows...
|
|
06-09-2021 09:13 AM |
|