Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
Author Message
Bear Catlett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,554
Joined: Jan 2020
Reputation: 200
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #21
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
If we go undefeated next year, having won games at IU and Notre Dame, there is no way they could keep us out.
12-20-2020 08:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,765
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #22
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
(12-20-2020 06:32 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  A G4 playoff plus the AAC in it is NEVER gonna happen 05-nono NEVER

It certainly shouldn't - - with or without the AAC - - because the only purpose any kind of G5 or "G4" championship game would have would be to cement the obviously anachronistic idea in place that the non-P5 FBS conferences are somehow a full tier below the P5 conferences.
12-20-2020 08:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shere khan Offline
Southerner
*

Posts: 45,666
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 4050
I Root For: Memphis State
Location: God's Country
Post: #23
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
(12-20-2020 08:13 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  If we go undefeated next year, having won games at IU and Notre Dame, there is no way they could keep us out.

03-lmfao

IU. 03-lmfao you better beat them.

Notre Dame 03-lmfao hell even Tulsa has beat them. They are a farce

Yeah. Beat Bama or Ohio State and then talk. IU and Notre Lane, not so much.
12-20-2020 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 34,732
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1802
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #24
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
(12-20-2020 08:17 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(12-20-2020 06:32 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  A G4 playoff plus the AAC in it is NEVER gonna happen 05-nono NEVER

It certainly shouldn't - - with or without the AAC - - because the only purpose any kind of G5 or "G4" championship game would have would be to cement the obviously anachronistic idea in place that the non-P5 FBS conferences are somehow a full tier below the P5 conferences.

lol...not to mention the top G5 team would not even be participating in the "G5 playoff" anyway. The top G5 champ would much rather go play against a top 10 P5 team in the access bowl. My proposal to improve the G5 postseason has always been to do something that aligns with the current CFP/Bowl system than degrade ourselves with some half azzed mini-me playoff that will perceived as doing little more than determining the 66th best team in the nation.

Create a series of 3 bowls. The #1 G5 champ goes to the access bowl.

#2 G5 champ vs highest P5 NOT in a CFP sponsored bowl

#3 G5 champ vs next highest P5 NOT in a CFP sponsored Bowl

#4 G5 champ vs #5 G5 champ.

These would not be NYD bowls, but they would be after Christmas Bowls, preferably played the during the week or on the weekend PRIOR to the national championship game.
(This post was last modified: 12-20-2020 08:28 PM by Attackcoog.)
12-20-2020 08:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,728
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 185
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #25
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
As you lads know, I am passionate about athletic programs in both P5 and G5 leagues. And this long-time Memphis and Cincy fan would be 1 million percent opposed to a G5 playoff. I'm staunchly in support with everybody who has posted in this thread.

The American has made too many strides in football to be on board with such an idea. Stay the course and keep securing the NY6 bowls most seasons.
12-20-2020 08:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatJerry Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,552
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 315
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #26
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
I have said this before and I remain just as adamant about it now: If the g5 were to agree to some sort of separate "championship" structure, it would be time to quit wasting money and re-categorize as FCS. Period. If we end up in a separate championship program, then we're no longer "FBS" and then it's time to just reclassify and make the best of it.

And that is, as the OP notes, the "end game" strategy here... Sadly, most of the "Power" conferences really resent how many D1AA teams have tried to see themselves on "the same level" as the "Big Boys." Seriously. Yes, there is money involved, but never underestimate the sheer hubris and snobbery involved here. Cincinnati got to see it first hand when we arrived at the Big East: Pittsburgh, just to name one school (but certainly not limited to that one school) made it quite clear that they thought that it was insulting that suddenly Cincinnati (and Louisville and USF) were "peers." Ohio State thinks that any of the other (Public) schools in the State are nothing more than glorified community colleges and not to be mentioned in the same breath with them. They...really...do...NOT...want...to...share...with...us.

The NCAA, who is complicit with this (hence the whole "Autonomous" nonsense) wants to reinvigorate the FCS. D1AA, later FCS, was decimated by the movement of programs to FBS. They (the NCAA) would very much like to see FCS made [more] "relevant" again. So, it's a "two-birds-with-one-stone" type strategy: FBS is "purged" and FCS gets a transfusion...and likely a reorganization with an infusion of D2 (from the lower end of the D1/FCS ranks) and D3 as costs continue to explode.
12-20-2020 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,765
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #27
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
(12-20-2020 04:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...in 2016, when a very attractive G5 NON-champ played a MW champ (SDSU) in the Las Vegas Bowl, they drew a TV audience of over 3.1 million.

So...clearly such match ups can attract a substantial audience and likely deserve a much larger stage than they currently are available.

Definitely, and furthermore, a number of non-bowl games between major non-P5 teams have also netted ~3 million viewers, or more, including:


The 2020 Army-Navy Game (4.9 million viewers)

The 2019 AAC Championship Game

The 2019 Army-Navy Game (~8+ million viewers)

SMU-Memphis (2019)

The 2018 AAC Championship Game

The 2018 Army-Navy Game (~8+ million viewers)

Cincy-UCF (2018)

The 2017 AAC Championship Game

The 2017 Army-Navy Game (~8+ million viewers)

Army-SDSU (2017)

UCF-Memphis (2017)

The 2016 Army-Navy Game

SDSU-Houston (2016)

Houston-Memphis (2016)

...and others

.

Notably, some FCS Championship Games have had 2.5-3 million viewers, which would be at least 2-3 times higher than any regular season FCS games have had.

.

If what is true for the FCS Championship Game would be replicated in a putative "Non-P5 (G5 + Independents) Championship Game," the viewership might well approach 10 million viewers (3 * 3.34 million viewers) in its first go-round and increase steadily from there.
(This post was last modified: 12-20-2020 09:43 PM by jedclampett.)
12-20-2020 09:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,180
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 116
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #28
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
iam for it, things do change and can change, it’s true the A5 want nothing to do with the rest of us obviously
its one of three out comes for G conferences
1) remain the same and remain second fiddle anyway
2) all conference champions with wildcards playoffs, i want this too...
3) G5 playoffs
12-20-2020 09:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Agust Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,129
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 46
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #29
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
(12-20-2020 03:08 PM)B easy Wrote:  ...... Maybe we shouldn't have sold the Big East name after all. Just keep grinding & never give in.

There was a reason the BE paid so much to keep the naming rights. This is one of the worst moves done by Aresco and was a short term gain with long term consequences. Branding goes a long way.
(This post was last modified: 12-20-2020 09:38 PM by Agust.)
12-20-2020 09:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,180
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 116
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #30
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
the A5 have their problems too , there are mybe 50 teams that will never have a chance to get to their playoffs and they are realizing this more and more, it’s a time bomb in their future and they might ditch the committee and go to a real playoff, but but will they invite the G conferences?, and if not, then what
(This post was last modified: 12-20-2020 09:51 PM by JHS55.)
12-20-2020 09:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,970
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 524
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #31
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
(12-20-2020 09:21 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(12-20-2020 04:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ...in 2016, when a very attractive G5 NON-champ played a MW champ (SDSU) in the Las Vegas Bowl, they drew a TV audience of over 3.1 million.

So...clearly such match ups can attract a substantial audience and likely deserve a much larger stage than they currently are available.

Definitely, and furthermore, a number of non-bowl games between major non-P5 teams have also netted ~3 million viewers, or more, including:


The 2020 Army-Navy Game (4.9 million viewers)

The 2019 AAC Championship Game

The 2019 Army-Navy Game (~8+ million viewers)

SMU-Memphis (2019)

The 2018 AAC Championship Game

The 2018 Army-Navy Game (~8+ million viewers)

Cincy-UCF (2018)

The 2017 AAC Championship Game

The 2017 Army-Navy Game (~8+ million viewers)

Army-SDSU (2017)

UCF-Memphis (2017)

The 2016 Army-Navy Game

SDSU-Houston (2016)

Houston-Memphis (2016)

...and others

.

Notably, some FCS Championship Games have had 2.5-3 million viewers, which would be at least 2-3 times higher than any regular season FCS games have had.

.

If what is true for the FCS Championship Game would be replicated in a putative "Non-P5 (G5 + Independents) Championship Game," the viewership might well approach 10 million viewers (3 * 3.34 million viewers) in its first go-round and increase steadily from there.

First off, I've done the work for you already:
https://csnbbs.com/thread-901519.html
https://csnbbs.com/thread-867843.html
https://csnbbs.com/thread-838636-post-15...id15000866
So you don't need to be all "and maybe more, no one really knows..."

Secondly, though, you're as wrong as wrong can be on your putative 10 million viewers.
FCS Championship Game viewers over the last four years:
2019, on ABC, no competition: 2.69 million viewers
2018, on ESPN2, no comp: 1.004 million viewers
2017, on ESPN2, no comp: 1.515 million viewers
2016, on ESPN2, no comp: 1.562 million viewers

That ABC number is not some kind of launching point - it is the best case. In another thread I told another crazy that we could stipulate DOUBLING for a lower-level championship with Boise State instead of North Dakota State (unrealistic though it is)...and it still fell behind Memphis in the Cotton Bowl. The WORST CFP NY6 bowl draw of Western Michigan got over 5 million viewers.

There is no rational basis to assert otherwise.

Another parallel - go check the NIT ratings versus the NCAA March Madness.

How about a no kidding matchup of "G5" champs in a bowl: 2018 NIU and UAB got matched up and drew 1.346 million viewers.
This year, Ball State vs SJSU will be on CBS, OTA on the afternoon of New Year's Eve...and it will be right around that '16 Las Vegas Bowl 3.1 million viewers. Marshall-Buffalo were favorites going into their CCG and lost, but still a "G5 Playoff" kind of matchup and if it gets 3 million I'll be stunned.

A "G5 Playoff" aka "FCS-Platinum" wouldn't start much higher than 3 million, for the sake of novelty and would decline thereafter.
12-20-2020 10:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,180
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 116
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #32
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
there you go moriarty throwing out all them negative waves man...look around , it’s beautiful, smell the roses and diesel fuel
12-20-2020 10:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
8BitPirate Offline
A Man of Wealth and Taste
*

Posts: 4,548
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 332
I Root For: ECU
Location: ITB
Post: #33
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
(12-20-2020 10:57 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  there you go moriarty throwing out all them negative waves man...look around , it’s beautiful, smell the roses and diesel fuel

suppose the bridge isn't there...
12-21-2020 12:02 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearcatbdub Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,077
Joined: May 2006
Reputation: 106
I Root For: The 'Cats! duh!
Location: Union, KY
Post: #34
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
(12-20-2020 08:25 PM)shere khan Wrote:  
(12-20-2020 08:13 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  If we go undefeated next year, having won games at IU and Notre Dame, there is no way they could keep us out.

03-lmfao

IU. 03-lmfao you better beat them.

Notre Dame 03-lmfao hell even Tulsa has beat them. They are a farce

Yeah. Beat Bama or Ohio State and then talk. IU and Notre Lane, not so much.
I mean yeah. Cuz Memphis is beating them all the time just for kicks...
12-21-2020 12:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,765
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #35
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
(12-20-2020 08:27 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The American has made too many strides in football to be on board with such an idea.

The idea certainly does seem to be counterproductive for the other G5 conferences, as well.

However, Attack Coog has made an interesting suggestion (above) that the non-P5 schools might actually improve if there were a parallel non-P5 (G5 + Independents) playoff series - - if, and only if, such a parallel series were to be equivalent or nearly equivalent in nearly all respects (compensation per school, broadcast in similar prime-time slots with comparable viewership potential, similar levels of marketing and
promotional advertising, etc.).

Admittedly, this may seem like a very unlikely scenario. However, a highly sophisticated strategic approach, if implemented properly, might make it possible to work out an arrangement that would create both: (1) much better bowl game opportunities for the top-ranked non-P5 teams; and (2)opportunities for the non-P5 conferences and schools to reap the benefits of a formal or informal coalition (much like the benefits that have been reaped by the de facto coalition of P5 conferences), which might well grant them the opportunity to empower themselves more broadly, going forward.

If they were to start small, by building a simple empowerment coalition to work toward a more inclusive post-season playoff bowl structure, their efforts could lead to a much better overall outcome for the non-P5 schools and conferences.

.

A strategic plan to set up a fully-equivalent "Non-P5 Mirror CFP" series.


The idea that any broadcasting network would offer to pay a roughly proportionate - if not equivalent - amount (on a per-school basis) that is currently paid to broadcast the CFP playoffs for the rights to televise a 4 team "Non-P5 Championship Series" would certainly seem, at present, to have little or chance of success.

However, there might be a way to create a much more inclusive playoff system for the non-P5 schools by implementing a relatively sophisticated strategy based on "Game Theory."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/


The following is an explication of a "thought-experiment" conducted to examine the potential feasibility of setting up a non-P5 playoff series
that would have the potential to be played under conditions very similar to those of the existing CFP series, with respect to broadcasting time (i.e., optimal prime-time slots), payments allocated on a per-school basis, marketing, halftime events, and other promotional efforts.

......................................................................................................

NOTE: The following "thought-experiment" might or might not be feasible under the terms of the current broadcasting agreements between the various non-P5 conferences. [i]However, the fact that special provisions have been made to permit the existence of the CFP, itself
, which has been able to operate autonomously despite the varying terms of the agreements between the 10 conferences and their broadcasters suggest that this might not be a major stumbling block.

Moreover, were an attempt to obtain a special waiver or a simple extension of the terms governing the CFP to be thwarted, the non-P5 conferences would be in a strong position were they to pursue the right to negotiate a broadcasting agreement for an autonomous playoff series, were they to pursue the matter through civil litigation, given that: (a) They have never had a team in the CFP, and (b) Under the terms of U.S. laws prohibiting discriminatory and anti-monopolistic practices, their right to hold a championship series would be likely to be upheld.

......................................................................................................

The basic elements of a game theory-based strategic plan would include the following:

The initial assumption of such a strategic plan would include the fundamental recognition that, in order to generate sufficient interest in such a proposal, among the potential broadcasters, the non-P5s - as a group - would need to make it clear to the various broadcasting entities that they would be willing to consider participating in a non-P5 "mirror CFP" playoff series, which would be initiated with an agreement to play an inaugural non-P5 playoff series for 50% of the amount that is currently paid for the exclusively P5 (CFP) series, contingent on a multi-year broadcasting agreementthat would phase-in a series of annual increases in per-school payments until they begin to approach the per-school payments for the CFP playoffs.

If there were enough interest among the non-P5 schools to create at least a willingness to give the idea a try, they could start out, very simply, by organizing themselves into a very loose-knit (or theoretical semblance of a) coalition, at first, with a title or name hinting (or yielding the vague impression) that they might be (but aren't actually) informally entertaining the idea of evolving into an FBS rival quasi-"league," which could be represented by the non-P5 Commissioners on a rotating basis. Alternatively, the non-P5s could opt to elect a "organizing committee" to represent them, with a dedicated or rotating chair.

The next step would be to develop a very simple consensus proposal for a parallel CFP series, which could be as simple as an agreement to convey (to the broadcasting organizations) nothing more than a mere willingness to consider the idea of conducting a non-P5 playoff series that would mirror the CFP playoff series in every respect, but would include the top 4 non-P5 teams.

From a game theory perspective, even an informal agreement to convey a mere willingness "to consider" the idea, might have the potential to be many times more empowering than one might ordinarily imagine, particularly if the news of such a decision were to be transmitted in a very sophisticated, strategic manner.

If managed properly, the "playing field" among the broadcasters could be affected almost instantaneously, by presenting them with a sudden realization that they - or their competitors - would now have a completely unexpected and challenging opportunity to initiate potentially profitable discussions with a newly self-empowered group of FBS conferences.

One of the more sophisticated strategies would be for the non-P5 coalition or committee to leak a couple of sketchy, but tantalizing mid-to-week details to a few selected reporters or bloggers, with the weekend approaching, of what might be referred to as "rumored" discussions among the non-P5 schools. The advantage of preceding formal notifications with strategic leaks of sketchy details is that such leaks often have the potential to go viral, like "memes," and to create a sense of enthusiasm (i.e., "buzz") that can sweep across the nation like wildfire. Very often, an idea that might be rejected out of hand if it were to be made directly, through normal channels, may instead be perceived as a potential opportunity if it is accompanied by a wave of public enthusiasm.

One way to illustrate the game theory implications of preceding an announcement with the release of a few sketchy details is by noting that the potential consequences of mere, but partially substantiated rumors have often been known to cause significant swings in valuation in the financial markets (S&P, Dow Jones, NASDAQ).

Within a few days - - just long enough for the rumor mill to begin to go "viral" over an upcoming weekend, or for the first couple reports to mention the rumors - - the non-P5 group would then proceed to send letters to the major and potential (entrepreneurial) broadcasters stating that there is a consensus among the non-P5 schools they would be willing to consider holding a non-P5 playoff series along the lines of a "mirror CFP" if there are broadcasters who would be interested in meeting the terms (near or full parity with the P5's CFP outlays within a specified period of years). To emphasize the competitive nature of the situation, he letters would be clearly marked with a "cc" note, making it crystal clear that the offer has been extended to their broadcasting competitors.

[i]The game theory element[/i] in making it clear that the non-P5 coalition is expressing nothing more than a "willingness to consider" such a proposal is that it would make it clear that, rather than taking a hopelessly subservient position by requesting a non-P5 playoff series, the non-P5 coalition has instead elected to empower itself by taking no action other than informing the recipients of a potential business opportunity for which the non-P5 coalition would be willing to consider competitive bids.

Because perceived scarcity tends to generate demand, it would be crucial for the fledgling coalition of non-P5 schools to make it clear that their agreement to consider proposals (similar to a "RFP" or request for proposals) would have a relatively tight (3-month) deadline, making it a "limited time offer." If there are no offers within 3 months, the formal "quasi-RFP" would simply expire, with no hints of willingness to extend the deadline or issue another quasi-RFP.

The chances of being contacted with a serious inquiry after the expiration of a 3-month deadline might actually increase if the willingness to consider a non-P5 series were not reiterated, because their silence on the matter would tend confirm the impression that the non-P5 coalition was truly offering broadcasters an opportunity, rather than making a request, which would be beneficial from the standpoint of perceived supply and demand.

Emphasizing the stipulation that the non-P5 coalition would not consider any offer that falls short of a proposed pathway to what would become a nearly-equivalent “mirror CFP” - - to be broadcasted in equivalent prime-time hours, preceded by equivalent pre-game marketing efforts, and with per-school payments scheduled to match the amount paid for the CFP playoffs within a few (e.g. 5) years - - would make it clear that patronizing or trivializing responses would be rejected. Although some broadcasters might be inclined to respond with an offer to pay a tiny fraction of the per-school CFP payments (e.g., to broadcast a Saturday noon “G5” championship game on ESPN+), they would be unlikely to do so, since it would generate a negative response and might redound to the benefit of one of their competitors.

Some, if not most of the major broadcasters would be expected, at least, to respond within the specified time limit, and to at least signal indicate some willingness to discuss the possibility of broadcasting some kind of a non-P5 playoff series, without necessarily addressing the strict criteria set forth by the latter. This, itself could be somewhat empowering, since the ball would then be in the hands of the non-P5 coalition, which would have a variety of options, ranging from reiterating that they would only be willing to consider offers that meet the minimum terms specified in their initial letter, to expressing a willingness to enter into broader discussions on a more flexible bona fides basis (e.g., a more gradual increase in per-school payments over a longer time frame, or an agreement to make per-school payments contingent on viewership data).

One of the most hoped-for outcomes of cc’ing their letters to a sufficient number of broadcasters, is that there would be some possibility that a non-P5 coalition might thus be able to set the stage for what would become tantamount to an auction.
The hoped-for outcome would be to engage the potential broadcasters in a competitive bidding process, since this would make it much more likely that something closely approximating an equivalent non-P5 playoff could be set into motion.

Another equally sanguine possibility is that, if the non-P5 coalition were to pursue their strategy doggedly enough, it is possible that the P5 conferences might become sufficiently concerned to reach out to the non-P5 coalition with an offer to expand the CFP series. If they were to do so, the non-P5 coalition could choose between negotiating the details of an expanded CFP series or continuing to entertain competitive bids from the P5 and any broadcasters that might be interested in sponsoring a non-P5 “mirror CFP.”
(This post was last modified: 12-21-2020 06:47 AM by jedclampett.)
12-21-2020 06:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rosewater Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,559
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 149
I Root For: cincy
Location:
Post: #36
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
The 2017 UCf and 2020 Uc finishes should put to bed any thought of the American in a G5 playoff. These two teams were just too close to write off the American conference altogether.
(This post was last modified: 12-21-2020 08:07 AM by rosewater.)
12-21-2020 08:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Shox Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 586
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 48
I Root For: Wichita State
Location:
Post: #37
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
The AAC has the golden goose in their hands if they would act decisively and become the first true national conference. By adding CSU, Boise, BYU, UNLV, SDSU along with Army and AFA football only, they can easily make the argument they belong in any P6 conference playoff and our worthy of an autobid. Give the Academies a Notre Dame type deal where they only have to play 6 conference games and this will work.
12-21-2020 10:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MidknightWhiskey Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 656
Joined: Oct 2019
Reputation: 57
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #38
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
I highly doubt the votes would be there for the AAC to participate in that. If it's forced on us UCF will leave, likely UC, Memphis & Houston as well. A G5 playoff would eliminate the access bowl as well. I do think that is going to be eliminated or at least a strong push to eliminate it from the P5 in 2025. We'll see if P6 has made enough waves by then to be included with an autobid.

CFP should be 14 teams, 10 conference champs and 4 at large. 1 & 2 seed get a buy. Seeding for 1-10 is done by the conferences total OOC record.
If there's a strong push to not include the G4 in the next contract than go with 6 conference champs 2 at large. Seeding 1-6 is by the conferences total OOC schedule.
12-21-2020 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 34,732
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1802
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #39
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
(12-21-2020 06:13 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(12-20-2020 08:27 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The American has made too many strides in football to be on board with such an idea.

The idea certainly does seem to be counterproductive for the other G5 conferences, as well.

However, Attack Coog has made an interesting suggestion (above) that the non-P5 schools might actually improve if there were a parallel non-P5 (G5 + Independents) playoff series - - if, and only if, such a parallel series were to be equivalent or nearly equivalent in nearly all respects (compensation per school, broadcast in similar prime-time slots with comparable viewership potential, similar levels of marketing and
promotional advertising, etc.).

Admittedly, this may seem like a very unlikely scenario. However, a highly sophisticated strategic approach, if implemented properly, might make it possible to work out an arrangement that would create both: (1) much better bowl game opportunities for the top-ranked non-P5 teams; and (2)opportunities for the non-P5 conferences and schools to reap the benefits of a formal or informal coalition (much like the benefits that have been reaped by the de facto coalition of P5 conferences), which might well grant them the opportunity to empower themselves more broadly, going forward.

If they were to start small, by building a simple empowerment coalition to work toward a more inclusive post-season playoff bowl structure, their efforts could lead to a much better overall outcome for the non-P5 schools and conferences.

.

A strategic plan to set up a fully-equivalent "Non-P5 Mirror CFP" series.


The idea that any broadcasting network would offer to pay a roughly proportionate - if not equivalent - amount (on a per-school basis) that is currently paid to broadcast the CFP playoffs for the rights to televise a 4 team "Non-P5 Championship Series" would certainly seem, at present, to have little or chance of success.

However, there might be a way to create a much more inclusive playoff system for the non-P5 schools by implementing a relatively sophisticated strategy based on "Game Theory."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/


The following is an explication of a "thought-experiment" conducted to examine the potential feasibility of setting up a non-P5 playoff series
that would have the potential to be played under conditions very similar to those of the existing CFP series, with respect to broadcasting time (i.e., optimal prime-time slots), payments allocated on a per-school basis, marketing, halftime events, and other promotional efforts.

......................................................................................................

NOTE: The following "thought-experiment" might or might not be feasible under the terms of the current broadcasting agreements between the various non-P5 conferences. [i]However, the fact that special provisions have been made to permit the existence of the CFP, itself
, which has been able to operate autonomously despite the varying terms of the agreements between the 10 conferences and their broadcasters suggest that this might not be a major stumbling block.

Moreover, were an attempt to obtain a special waiver or a simple extension of the terms governing the CFP to be thwarted, the non-P5 conferences would be in a strong position were they to pursue the right to negotiate a broadcasting agreement for an autonomous playoff series, were they to pursue the matter through civil litigation, given that: (a) They have never had a team in the CFP, and (b) Under the terms of U.S. laws prohibiting discriminatory and anti-monopolistic practices, their right to hold a championship series would be likely to be upheld.

......................................................................................................

The basic elements of a game theory-based strategic plan would include the following:

The initial assumption of such a strategic plan would include the fundamental recognition that, in order to generate sufficient interest in such a proposal, among the potential broadcasters, the non-P5s - as a group - would need to make it clear to the various broadcasting entities that they would be willing to consider participating in a non-P5 "mirror CFP" playoff series, which would be initiated with an agreement to play an inaugural non-P5 playoff series for 50% of the amount that is currently paid for the exclusively P5 (CFP) series, contingent on a multi-year broadcasting agreementthat would phase-in a series of annual increases in per-school payments until they begin to approach the per-school payments for the CFP playoffs.

If there were enough interest among the non-P5 schools to create at least a willingness to give the idea a try, they could start out, very simply, by organizing themselves into a very loose-knit (or theoretical semblance of a) coalition, at first, with a title or name hinting (or yielding the vague impression) that they might be (but aren't actually) informally entertaining the idea of evolving into an FBS rival quasi-"league," which could be represented by the non-P5 Commissioners on a rotating basis. Alternatively, the non-P5s could opt to elect a "organizing committee" to represent them, with a dedicated or rotating chair.

The next step would be to develop a very simple consensus proposal for a parallel CFP series, which could be as simple as an agreement to convey (to the broadcasting organizations) nothing more than a mere willingness to consider the idea of conducting a non-P5 playoff series that would mirror the CFP playoff series in every respect, but would include the top 4 non-P5 teams.

From a game theory perspective, even an informal agreement to convey a mere willingness "to consider" the idea, might have the potential to be many times more empowering than one might ordinarily imagine, particularly if the news of such a decision were to be transmitted in a very sophisticated, strategic manner.

If managed properly, the "playing field" among the broadcasters could be affected almost instantaneously, by presenting them with a sudden realization that they - or their competitors - would now have a completely unexpected and challenging opportunity to initiate potentially profitable discussions with a newly self-empowered group of FBS conferences.

One of the more sophisticated strategies would be for the non-P5 coalition or committee to leak a couple of sketchy, but tantalizing mid-to-week details to a few selected reporters or bloggers, with the weekend approaching, of what might be referred to as "rumored" discussions among the non-P5 schools. The advantage of preceding formal notifications with strategic leaks of sketchy details is that such leaks often have the potential to go viral, like "memes," and to create a sense of enthusiasm (i.e., "buzz") that can sweep across the nation like wildfire. Very often, an idea that might be rejected out of hand if it were to be made directly, through normal channels, may instead be perceived as a potential opportunity if it is accompanied by a wave of public enthusiasm.

One way to illustrate the game theory implications of preceding an announcement with the release of a few sketchy details is by noting that the potential consequences of mere, but partially substantiated rumors have often been known to cause significant swings in valuation in the financial markets (S&P, Dow Jones, NASDAQ).

Within a few days - - just long enough for the rumor mill to begin to go "viral" over an upcoming weekend, or for the first couple reports to mention the rumors - - the non-P5 group would then proceed to send letters to the major and potential (entrepreneurial) broadcasters stating that there is a consensus among the non-P5 schools they would be willing to consider holding a non-P5 playoff series along the lines of a "mirror CFP" if there are broadcasters who would be interested in meeting the terms (near or full parity with the P5's CFP outlays within a specified period of years). To emphasize the competitive nature of the situation, he letters would be clearly marked with a "cc" note, making it crystal clear that the offer has been extended to their broadcasting competitors.

[i]The game theory element[/i] in making it clear that the non-P5 coalition is expressing nothing more than a "willingness to consider" such a proposal is that it would make it clear that, rather than taking a hopelessly subservient position by requesting a non-P5 playoff series, the non-P5 coalition has instead elected to empower itself by taking no action other than informing the recipients of a potential business opportunity for which the non-P5 coalition would be willing to consider competitive bids.

Because perceived scarcity tends to generate demand, it would be crucial for the fledgling coalition of non-P5 schools to make it clear that their agreement to consider proposals (similar to a "RFP" or request for proposals) would have a relatively tight (3-month) deadline, making it a "limited time offer." If there are no offers within 3 months, the formal "quasi-RFP" would simply expire, with no hints of willingness to extend the deadline or issue another quasi-RFP.

The chances of being contacted with a serious inquiry after the expiration of a 3-month deadline might actually increase if the willingness to consider a non-P5 series were not reiterated, because their silence on the matter would tend confirm the impression that the non-P5 coalition was truly offering broadcasters an opportunity, rather than making a request, which would be beneficial from the standpoint of perceived supply and demand.

Emphasizing the stipulation that the non-P5 coalition would not consider any offer that falls short of a proposed pathway to what would become a nearly-equivalent “mirror CFP” - - to be broadcasted in equivalent prime-time hours, preceded by equivalent pre-game marketing efforts, and with per-school payments scheduled to match the amount paid for the CFP playoffs within a few (e.g. 5) years - - would make it clear that patronizing or trivializing responses would be rejected. Although some broadcasters might be inclined to respond with an offer to pay a tiny fraction of the per-school CFP payments (e.g., to broadcast a Saturday noon “G5” championship game on ESPN+), they would be unlikely to do so, since it would generate a negative response and might redound to the benefit of one of their competitors.

Some, if not most of the major broadcasters would be expected, at least, to respond within the specified time limit, and to at least signal indicate some willingness to discuss the possibility of broadcasting some kind of a non-P5 playoff series, without necessarily addressing the strict criteria set forth by the latter. This, itself could be somewhat empowering, since the ball would then be in the hands of the non-P5 coalition, which would have a variety of options, ranging from reiterating that they would only be willing to consider offers that meet the minimum terms specified in their initial letter, to expressing a willingness to enter into broader discussions on a more flexible bona fides basis (e.g., a more gradual increase in per-school payments over a longer time frame, or an agreement to make per-school payments contingent on viewership data).

One of the most hoped-for outcomes of cc’ing their letters to a sufficient number of broadcasters, is that there would be some possibility that a non-P5 coalition might thus be able to set the stage for what would become tantamount to an auction.
The hoped-for outcome would be to engage the potential broadcasters in a competitive bidding process, since this would make it much more likely that something closely approximating an equivalent non-P5 playoff could be set into motion.

Another equally sanguine possibility is that, if the non-P5 coalition were to pursue their strategy doggedly enough, it is possible that the P5 conferences might become sufficiently concerned to reach out to the non-P5 coalition with an offer to expand the CFP series. If they were to do so, the non-P5 coalition could choose between negotiating the details of an expanded CFP series or continuing to entertain competitive bids from the P5 and any broadcasters that might be interested in sponsoring a non-P5 “mirror CFP.”

To be clear---I think accepting a separate G5 playoff would be a MASSIVE mistake for the G5. What I suggested was simply a series of 3 high end bowls for the G5 champs. Two of the bowls would pit the #2 and #3 top G5 champs against ranked P5 opponents not in CFP bowls. The third bowl would pit the #4 and #5 G5 champs against one another. What Im suggesting is a something that fits neatly within the existing CFP framework---its not in any way a competitor to the current CFP system or a split FROM the current CFP system. What Im suggesting has nothing to do with crowning a champion---its just a way to insure that every G5 champ has a high quality post season destination worthy of a conference champion. The top G5 still goes to the access bowl in my plan.
(This post was last modified: 12-21-2020 01:09 PM by Attackcoog.)
12-21-2020 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,765
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #40
RE: AAC can never agree to G5 playoff. That's what the P5 is trying to force.
(12-21-2020 10:57 AM)Shox Wrote:  The AAC has the golden goose in their hands if they would act decisively and become the first true national conference. By adding CSU, Boise, BYU, UNLV, SDSU along with Army and AFA football only, they can easily make the argument they belong in any P6 conference playoff and our worthy of an autobid. Give the Academies a Notre Dame type deal where they only have to play 6 conference games and this will work.

Agree that the AAC is in the catbird's seat (or has the golden goose in their hands), but they either (a) don't realize it, or (b) have been completely paralyzed into action by the 4 schools (Cincy and 3 others) that © seem to have zero interest in the idea of conference expansion or the conference's "P6" strategic plan, because (d) they're totally fixated on getting picked up by one of the P5 conferences.

However, (e) Commissioner Aresco seems to have signaled a slight change in sentiment by conveying that there is now an emerging preference to at least replace Connecticut, which may signal that (f) the 11 members in each sport are beginning to become concerned that the loss of a FB and BB market and a good BB school may be starting to have a deleterious effects.

What does all that signal?

It appears to signal that, though the 4 schools that have shown the least interest in the long-term development of the conference (by withholding a GOR) are starting to wake up and smell the coffee, at least to the extent of becoming more willing to allow Connecticut to be replaced.

Nevertheless, there haven't been any hints of a move to replace Connecticut in either sport, to date. While this could change if the AAC only gets 1 or 2 NCAA tournament bids in the spring, there seems to be little reason to expect replacements for Connecticut within the next year.

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

Now, you're proposing that the AAC should add 5 full members, bringing total to 16, and also to add Army and AFA as ND-like affiliates (FB only)

1. There seems to be no way on earth that the conference would add even 3 schools, unless BYU, Army, and SDSU/AFA/Boise were to bang on the door and demand to be admitted.

--Even then, the AAC leadership might refuse to make a move unless the Army were to dispatch an armored division to each of the 11 AAC campus, or unless the AFA were to dispatch a fighter wing to strafe all 11 campus, although Navy might have the wherewithal to fend them off from Annapolis.

2. There are serious reasons, from the standpoint of UCF, USF, ECU, Temple, and Cincy to oppose the idea of adding 5 western teams.

3. There's no way that the AAC would add 5 full members plus two ND-like affiliates, and it's not clear that any other conference would do it, either.

4. CSU seems to have dropped down on the interest list, and there has never been much interest in UNLV.

5. Boise's recent antics may have been too much for most of the AAC members to accept.

6. That would leave only BYU, SDSU, AFA, and Army (FB). The conference needs to add strength in BB, which would make AFA a FB-only prospect. BYU is uninterested, and probably won't change their minds unless the Big 12 reaffirms their decision not to expand by 2026.
12-21-2020 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.