yeah a G5 playoff with the 4 conference champions and four wildcards with the highest rated team going to the access bowl
this could establish 2 g5 only bowls that would iam thinking make money especially if some of these teams are in the AP 25

A G5 organization will never get off the ground because the AAC and MWC consider themselves a step above the rest.

What could be feasible is an association among C-USA, SBC, and MAC. They could negotiate tv contracts jointly to drive up the price of their content and level of access.

A bowl alliance with 3 ESPN bowls the first Saturday of Bowl Season featuring the 1st and 2nd place teams of the 3 conferences would be nice too. (If one of the participating conferences lands a NY6 spot, their 3rd place team could serve as a substitute).

The G5 need to tread lightly when it comes to the P5. They could easily reorganize into a power 4, nix the current CFP and just send their champs to the Rose and Sugar Bowls, and then have a Plus One system that would surely match the winners of those 2 bowls in the national championship.

(12-27-2020 07:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A G5 organization will never get off the ground because the AAC and MWC consider themselves a step above the rest.

What could be feasible is an association among C-USA, SBC, and MAC. They could negotiate tv contracts jointly to drive up the price of their content and level of access.

A bowl alliance with 3 ESPN bowls the first Saturday of Bowl Season featuring the 1st and 2nd place teams of the 3 conferences would be nice too. (If one of the participating conferences lands a NY6 spot, their 3rd place team could serve as a substitute).

The G5 need to tread lightly when it comes to the P5. They could easily reorganize into a power 4, nix the current CFP and just send their champs to the Rose and Sugar Bowls, and then have a Plus One system that would surely match the winners of those 2 bowls in the national championship.

Raise the stakes some and bring in the top FCS programs, and make a G5 playoffs that schools like Montana might be interested in.

(12-27-2020 07:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A G5 organization will never get off the ground because the AAC and MWC consider themselves a step above the rest.

What could be feasible is an association among C-USA, SBC, and MAC. They could negotiate tv contracts jointly to drive up the price of their content and level of access.

A bowl alliance with 3 ESPN bowls the first Saturday of Bowl Season featuring the 1st and 2nd place teams of the 3 conferences would be nice too. (If one of the participating conferences lands a NY6 spot, their 3rd place team could serve as a substitute).

The G5 need to tread lightly when it comes to the P5. They could easily reorganize into a power 4, nix the current CFP and just send their champs to the Rose and Sugar Bowls, and then have a Plus One system that would surely match the winners of those 2 bowls in the national championship.

there you have fellow G5 fans, an *** official *** autonomous threat ! to us little people
your the one that is treading on thin ice that is the A5 has the potential to fail do to its ultra successful system that only puts 6 or 7 teams every year in y’alls rigged playoffs, ge how long untill that ice becomes to thin to tread on...

(12-27-2020 07:50 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 07:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A G5 organization will never get off the ground because the AAC and MWC consider themselves a step above the rest.

What could be feasible is an association among C-USA, SBC, and MAC. They could negotiate tv contracts jointly to drive up the price of their content and level of access.

A bowl alliance with 3 ESPN bowls the first Saturday of Bowl Season featuring the 1st and 2nd place teams of the 3 conferences would be nice too. (If one of the participating conferences lands a NY6 spot, their 3rd place team could serve as a substitute).

The G5 need to tread lightly when it comes to the P5. They could easily reorganize into a power 4, nix the current CFP and just send their champs to the Rose and Sugar Bowls, and then have a Plus One system that would surely match the winners of those 2 bowls in the national championship.

there you have fellow G5 fans, an *** official *** autonomous threat ! to us little people
your the one that is treading on thin ice that is the A5 has the potential to fail do to its ultra successful system that only puts 6 or 7 teams every year in y’alls rigged playoffs, ge how long untill that ice becomes to thin to tread on...

Official threat? Hardly—but if the G5 thinks they are going to get 5 autobids in a 16 team playoff they are being unrealistic.

5-1-2 is the plan that G5 fans should be pushing for. It would finally give the G5 a chance at an undisputed national championship.

BTW I’m also a big Cincinnati Bearcats fan and have family connections to just about every MAC school in Ohio. I’m not some P5 overlord trying to keep the little people in their place.

(12-27-2020 08:40 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 07:50 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 07:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A G5 organization will never get off the ground because the AAC and MWC consider themselves a step above the rest.

What could be feasible is an association among C-USA, SBC, and MAC. They could negotiate tv contracts jointly to drive up the price of their content and level of access.

A bowl alliance with 3 ESPN bowls the first Saturday of Bowl Season featuring the 1st and 2nd place teams of the 3 conferences would be nice too. (If one of the participating conferences lands a NY6 spot, their 3rd place team could serve as a substitute).

The G5 need to tread lightly when it comes to the P5. They could easily reorganize into a power 4, nix the current CFP and just send their champs to the Rose and Sugar Bowls, and then have a Plus One system that would surely match the winners of those 2 bowls in the national championship.

there you have fellow G5 fans, an *** official *** autonomous threat ! to us little people
your the one that is treading on thin ice that is the A5 has the potential to fail do to its ultra successful system that only puts 6 or 7 teams every year in y’alls rigged playoffs, ge how long untill that ice becomes to thin to tread on...

Official threat? Hardly—but if the G5 thinks they are going to get 5 autobids in a 16 team playoff they are being unrealistic.

5-1-2 is the plan that G5 fans should be pushing for. It would finally give the G5 a chance at an undisputed national championship.

BTW I’m also a big Cincinnati Bearcats fan and have family connections to just about every MAC school in Ohio. I’m not some P5 overlord trying to keep the little people in their place.

true, if any g5 fan thinks their getting the A5 to allow 5 g5 auto bids they will wait untill hell freezes over
seeing that you have so many connections i’ll tread lightly with you from now on...

(12-27-2020 07:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A G5 organization will never get off the ground because the AAC and MWC consider themselves a step above the rest.

Possibly, but the AAC and MWC would get nowhere by themselves, since they have practically zero leverage.

Think of it this way - The two biggest American colonies (e.g., Virginia and one other) didn't try to go it alone against Great Britain. Why? Because they knew that they had no chance! Their only chance would be to get all 13 colonies to band together and then find an outside supporter.

The situation is very similar. The AAC and MWC's only chance of success would be to band together - - and that means an organization of 65 non-P5s to offset the power of the 65 P5s.

(12-27-2020 07:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The G5 need to tread lightly when it comes to the P5. They could easily reorganize into a power 4, nix the current CFP and just send their champs to the Rose and Sugar Bowls, and then have a Plus One system that would surely match the winners of those 2 bowls in the national championship.

Disagree. Treading lightly is what got them into this mess in the first place. The P5 lost all respect for the G5 when they didn't do a single thing to empower themselves. The G5 have been bullied mercilessly ever since.

Power 4? Highly unlikely. Texas would never go for it. Neither would Ohio State, and there's too much of a culture clash between the PAC and the Big 12. Further, the ACC and SEC in the 1930s, and there's no way that they'd want to give up their independence.

As far as a Plus One system, most college football fans are getting too bored with the CFP as it already is. What college football needs most is more variety, not less.

(12-27-2020 11:21 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 07:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A G5 organization will never get off the ground because the AAC and MWC consider themselves a step above the rest.

Possibly, but the AAC and MWC would get nowhere by themselves, since they have practically zero leverage.

Think of it this way - The two biggest American colonies (e.g., Virginia and one other) didn't try to go it alone against Great Britain. Why? Because they knew that they had no chance! Their only chance would be to get all 13 colonies to band together and then find an outside supporter.

The situation is very similar. The AAC and MWC's only chance of success would be to band together - - and that means an organization of 65 non-P5s to offset the power of the 65 P5s.

and where does the money come from to do this , ESPN, yup, i believe they want two leagues

(12-27-2020 11:30 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 11:21 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 07:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A G5 organization will never get off the ground because the AAC and MWC consider themselves a step above the rest.

Possibly, but the AAC and MWC would get nowhere by themselves, since they have practically zero leverage.

Think of it this way - The two biggest American colonies (e.g., Virginia and one other) didn't try to go it alone against Great Britain. Why? Because they knew that they had no chance! Their only chance would be to get all 13 colonies to band together and then find an outside supporter.

The situation is very similar. The AAC and MWC's only chance of success would be to band together - - and that means an organization of 65 non-P5s to offset the power of the 65 P5s.

and where does the money come from to do this , ESPN, yup, i believe they want two leagues

If they do want two leagues, it is a relatively recent change of mind on their part.

They were the ones who caused the P5/G5 split in the first place, seeing it as an opportunity to turn the top conferences into a semi-professionalized "mini-NFL."

It worked fine for a few years, but then problems started to pop up. The P5s all negotiated extremely lucrative broadcasting agreements, which reduced the networks' profitability. For example, a 10 team league with $50 million per school/per year payments will costs the network a minimum of $5 billion per decade in per-school compensation, alone.

Viewership cannot increase at a steep enough clip to maintain profitability at those levels. The existing model, based on an ongoing series of increases may not be sustainable, and even if it is, network profitability will be adversely affected.

.

The networks seem to have created the equivalent of a Frankensteinian broadcasting partner/monster in the form of the current P5, though they would of course deny the suggestion vociferously.

.

There have been more and more signals in recent years that the only way that ESPN/etc. can prevent themselves from being destroyed by this monstrosity of their own creation is by creating a more well-behaved and less threatening rival to its Frankenstein that will go toe to toe with him and bring him to heel.

.

The most telling signs include the new AAC and MWC broadcasting agreements, as well as the relatively recent agreements with the MAC, CUSA, and SBC. They also include efforts on the part of the networks to promote their non-P5 teams and games, and to encourage opportunities to broadcast contests between the P5 and non-P5 teams.

.

Clearly, the major sports networks view their non-P5 conferences and teams as valued partners, and they recognize that their ability to remain highly profitable may depend in large measure on their ability to take advantage of the opportunity that the non-P5 conferences will present them with in the coming years.

(12-27-2020 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 02:34 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 01:49 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  i agree with jed, the G5 commissioners need to do something proactive together right now, why wait, something should have been done years ago

The commissioners could start out promptly enough, and despite the pandemic constraints, by planning to have a series of informal weekly or bi-weekly luncheon-type meetings to share and commiserate about some of their common interests and concerns on zoom.

To maximize their ultimate chances of success from the standpoint of mutual empowerment, they could offer the Presidents of the independent FBS schools, as a group, the opportunity to be represented by someone who would have the same level of participation in the discussions as the 5 G5 commissioners.

Their informal lunch meetings could evolve into brainstorming sessions that would generate ideas as to how they might be able to promote the interests of the non-P5 schools and conferences.

There might be enough common ground to lead to a consensus about certain actions that the commissioners might like to take, as a group.

In order to make progress without getting caught up in the details, they might elect to set up committees, comprised of members from their staffs, or otherwise appointed. These committees could coordinate their efforts and meet independently, as needed.

After a period of months, the commissioners might formulate a proposal to form a working group with the goal of exploring the option of forming a coalition or an association with a formal title and logo, a regular staff, and periodic meetings among the commissioners or their representatives.

Within a year or two, they might consider appointing a rotating commissioner for the organization, from among their ranks, whom they and the leadership of their conferences could empower to hold discussions with the NCAA, the news media, congressional representatives, the P5 conferences, the networks, etc.

As a formal entity, this organization would have a great deal more power and influence than the individual G5 conferences currently have. It would have the ability to sponsor events (tournaments, bowl games, etc.), to intervene as needed on behalf of its constituents, and to negotiate on behalf of its member institutions for fairer and more equitable opportunities.

.

Starting from a few informal conversations, it wouldn't be difficult for them to organize themselves, at first, into an informal working group, and then into something approaching a formal coalition, evolving into a full-fledged mutual-empowerment organization to represent the interests of the nearly 70 non-P5 FBS universities within 2-3 years.

I only see two things that a coalition of the G5 could do that would be "positive".

One--would be to band together and pledge a portion (say 5 million a year) of the 85 million dollar G5 pay out to go toward building a "Champions Series" of bowl games designed to provide a good "high pay out" landing spot for the 4 G5 champs not heading to the access bowl. The bowls would be owned by the G5.

I would have there be 2 bowl games where the #2 and #3 G5 champs play the top P5 school the G5 can lure for the money (the P5 payout for these bowls would rival the CFP bowls). The third bowl would pit the #4 and #5 G5 champs and would pay less. Over the next 5 years the G5 could amass a war chest of nearly 25 million dollars to launch these bowls. Once started---I see no reason why such high quality bowls would not be self sufficient or even generate a nice profit. Thus, once the bowls start, the G5 annual 5 million contribution to fund the bowls can end or be greatly reduced.

The second thing the G5 could do is band together and negotiate the entire G5 game package as a group. Thats half the FBS inventory under one agent. That would give the G5 more negotiating leverage than they currently have. The problem there is the AAC, which makes substantially more than the rest of the G5 would probably want to opt out of such a package. While the "group negotiation" method would likely produce more total revenue for the G5 group as a whole---the AAC probably would not get as large a revenue stream as they would negotiating on their own.

This is the fly in the ointment for any G5 cooperation. There’s no incentive for the AAC to participate when it likely results in less pay, visibility and bowl games than the current setup. With all G5 media contracts being recently negotiated and fair market valued, the AAC makes more than the other conferences combined. There’s only one way to go if you’re the AAC and it isn’t up under a G5 collective agreement.

(12-28-2020 01:49 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 02:34 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 01:49 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  i agree with jed, the G5 commissioners need to do something proactive together right now, why wait, something should have been done years ago

The commissioners could start out promptly enough, and despite the pandemic constraints, by planning to have a series of informal weekly or bi-weekly luncheon-type meetings to share and commiserate about some of their common interests and concerns on zoom.

To maximize their ultimate chances of success from the standpoint of mutual empowerment, they could offer the Presidents of the independent FBS schools, as a group, the opportunity to be represented by someone who would have the same level of participation in the discussions as the 5 G5 commissioners.

Their informal lunch meetings could evolve into brainstorming sessions that would generate ideas as to how they might be able to promote the interests of the non-P5 schools and conferences.

There might be enough common ground to lead to a consensus about certain actions that the commissioners might like to take, as a group.

In order to make progress without getting caught up in the details, they might elect to set up committees, comprised of members from their staffs, or otherwise appointed. These committees could coordinate their efforts and meet independently, as needed.

After a period of months, the commissioners might formulate a proposal to form a working group with the goal of exploring the option of forming a coalition or an association with a formal title and logo, a regular staff, and periodic meetings among the commissioners or their representatives.

Within a year or two, they might consider appointing a rotating commissioner for the organization, from among their ranks, whom they and the leadership of their conferences could empower to hold discussions with the NCAA, the news media, congressional representatives, the P5 conferences, the networks, etc.

As a formal entity, this organization would have a great deal more power and influence than the individual G5 conferences currently have. It would have the ability to sponsor events (tournaments, bowl games, etc.), to intervene as needed on behalf of its constituents, and to negotiate on behalf of its member institutions for fairer and more equitable opportunities.

.

Starting from a few informal conversations, it wouldn't be difficult for them to organize themselves, at first, into an informal working group, and then into something approaching a formal coalition, evolving into a full-fledged mutual-empowerment organization to represent the interests of the nearly 70 non-P5 FBS universities within 2-3 years.

I only see two things that a coalition of the G5 could do that would be "positive".

One--would be to band together and pledge a portion (say 5 million a year) of the 85 million dollar G5 pay out to go toward building a "Champions Series" of bowl games designed to provide a good "high pay out" landing spot for the 4 G5 champs not heading to the access bowl. The bowls would be owned by the G5.

I would have there be 2 bowl games where the #2 and #3 G5 champs play the top P5 school the G5 can lure for the money (the P5 payout for these bowls would rival the CFP bowls). The third bowl would pit the #4 and #5 G5 champs and would pay less. Over the next 5 years the G5 could amass a war chest of nearly 25 million dollars to launch these bowls. Once started---I see no reason why such high quality bowls would not be self sufficient or even generate a nice profit. Thus, once the bowls start, the G5 annual 5 million contribution to fund the bowls can end or be greatly reduced.

The second thing the G5 could do is band together and negotiate the entire G5 game package as a group. Thats half the FBS inventory under one agent. That would give the G5 more negotiating leverage than they currently have. The problem there is the AAC, which makes substantially more than the rest of the G5 would probably want to opt out of such a package. While the "group negotiation" method would likely produce more total revenue for the G5 group as a whole---the AAC probably would not get as large a revenue stream as they would negotiating on their own.

This is the fly in the ointment for any G5 cooperation. There’s no incentive for the AAC to participate when it likely results in less pay, visibility and bowl games than the current setup. With all G5 media contracts being recently negotiated and fair market valued, the AAC makes more than the other conferences combined. There’s only one way to go if you’re the AAC and it isn’t up under a G5 collective agreement.

That's certainly true for the regular season TV packages. But for the bowls? To me, the AAC bowl lineup isn't any better than the other G5 bowl lineups. They are sad all around. So if something creative can be done collectively with the G5 bowls to generate more interest, then it may well be worth it to the AAC to participate.

(12-28-2020 02:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-28-2020 01:49 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 02:34 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 01:49 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  i agree with jed, the G5 commissioners need to do something proactive together right now, why wait, something should have been done years ago

The commissioners could start out promptly enough, and despite the pandemic constraints, by planning to have a series of informal weekly or bi-weekly luncheon-type meetings to share and commiserate about some of their common interests and concerns on zoom.

To maximize their ultimate chances of success from the standpoint of mutual empowerment, they could offer the Presidents of the independent FBS schools, as a group, the opportunity to be represented by someone who would have the same level of participation in the discussions as the 5 G5 commissioners.

Their informal lunch meetings could evolve into brainstorming sessions that would generate ideas as to how they might be able to promote the interests of the non-P5 schools and conferences.

There might be enough common ground to lead to a consensus about certain actions that the commissioners might like to take, as a group.

In order to make progress without getting caught up in the details, they might elect to set up committees, comprised of members from their staffs, or otherwise appointed. These committees could coordinate their efforts and meet independently, as needed.

After a period of months, the commissioners might formulate a proposal to form a working group with the goal of exploring the option of forming a coalition or an association with a formal title and logo, a regular staff, and periodic meetings among the commissioners or their representatives.

Within a year or two, they might consider appointing a rotating commissioner for the organization, from among their ranks, whom they and the leadership of their conferences could empower to hold discussions with the NCAA, the news media, congressional representatives, the P5 conferences, the networks, etc.

As a formal entity, this organization would have a great deal more power and influence than the individual G5 conferences currently have. It would have the ability to sponsor events (tournaments, bowl games, etc.), to intervene as needed on behalf of its constituents, and to negotiate on behalf of its member institutions for fairer and more equitable opportunities.

.

Starting from a few informal conversations, it wouldn't be difficult for them to organize themselves, at first, into an informal working group, and then into something approaching a formal coalition, evolving into a full-fledged mutual-empowerment organization to represent the interests of the nearly 70 non-P5 FBS universities within 2-3 years.

I only see two things that a coalition of the G5 could do that would be "positive".

One--would be to band together and pledge a portion (say 5 million a year) of the 85 million dollar G5 pay out to go toward building a "Champions Series" of bowl games designed to provide a good "high pay out" landing spot for the 4 G5 champs not heading to the access bowl. The bowls would be owned by the G5.

I would have there be 2 bowl games where the #2 and #3 G5 champs play the top P5 school the G5 can lure for the money (the P5 payout for these bowls would rival the CFP bowls). The third bowl would pit the #4 and #5 G5 champs and would pay less. Over the next 5 years the G5 could amass a war chest of nearly 25 million dollars to launch these bowls. Once started---I see no reason why such high quality bowls would not be self sufficient or even generate a nice profit. Thus, once the bowls start, the G5 annual 5 million contribution to fund the bowls can end or be greatly reduced.

The second thing the G5 could do is band together and negotiate the entire G5 game package as a group. Thats half the FBS inventory under one agent. That would give the G5 more negotiating leverage than they currently have. The problem there is the AAC, which makes substantially more than the rest of the G5 would probably want to opt out of such a package. While the "group negotiation" method would likely produce more total revenue for the G5 group as a whole---the AAC probably would not get as large a revenue stream as they would negotiating on their own.

This is the fly in the ointment for any G5 cooperation. There’s no incentive for the AAC to participate when it likely results in less pay, visibility and bowl games than the current setup. With all G5 media contracts being recently negotiated and fair market valued, the AAC makes more than the other conferences combined. There’s only one way to go if you’re the AAC and it isn’t up under a G5 collective agreement.

That's certainly true for the regular season TV packages. But for the bowls? To me, the AAC bowl lineup isn't any better than the other G5 bowl lineups. They are sad all around. So if something creative can be done collectively with the G5 bowls to generate more interest, then it may well be worth it to the AAC to participate.

I don't have time to check wikipedia tonight, but IIRC, the AAC has from 2-4 bowls a year against 6-6 P5 teams--Military Bowl, Birmingham Bowl, an occasional P5 in St Petersburg or DFW.

Everyone would rather play a 6-6 ACC team than a 10-3 G5 team, especially the AAC

(12-28-2020 09:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-28-2020 02:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-28-2020 01:49 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 02:34 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The commissioners could start out promptly enough, and despite the pandemic constraints, by planning to have a series of informal weekly or bi-weekly luncheon-type meetings to share and commiserate about some of their common interests and concerns on zoom.

To maximize their ultimate chances of success from the standpoint of mutual empowerment, they could offer the Presidents of the independent FBS schools, as a group, the opportunity to be represented by someone who would have the same level of participation in the discussions as the 5 G5 commissioners.

Their informal lunch meetings could evolve into brainstorming sessions that would generate ideas as to how they might be able to promote the interests of the non-P5 schools and conferences.

There might be enough common ground to lead to a consensus about certain actions that the commissioners might like to take, as a group.

In order to make progress without getting caught up in the details, they might elect to set up committees, comprised of members from their staffs, or otherwise appointed. These committees could coordinate their efforts and meet independently, as needed.

After a period of months, the commissioners might formulate a proposal to form a working group with the goal of exploring the option of forming a coalition or an association with a formal title and logo, a regular staff, and periodic meetings among the commissioners or their representatives.

Within a year or two, they might consider appointing a rotating commissioner for the organization, from among their ranks, whom they and the leadership of their conferences could empower to hold discussions with the NCAA, the news media, congressional representatives, the P5 conferences, the networks, etc.

As a formal entity, this organization would have a great deal more power and influence than the individual G5 conferences currently have. It would have the ability to sponsor events (tournaments, bowl games, etc.), to intervene as needed on behalf of its constituents, and to negotiate on behalf of its member institutions for fairer and more equitable opportunities.

.

Starting from a few informal conversations, it wouldn't be difficult for them to organize themselves, at first, into an informal working group, and then into something approaching a formal coalition, evolving into a full-fledged mutual-empowerment organization to represent the interests of the nearly 70 non-P5 FBS universities within 2-3 years.

I only see two things that a coalition of the G5 could do that would be "positive".

One--would be to band together and pledge a portion (say 5 million a year) of the 85 million dollar G5 pay out to go toward building a "Champions Series" of bowl games designed to provide a good "high pay out" landing spot for the 4 G5 champs not heading to the access bowl. The bowls would be owned by the G5.

I would have there be 2 bowl games where the #2 and #3 G5 champs play the top P5 school the G5 can lure for the money (the P5 payout for these bowls would rival the CFP bowls). The third bowl would pit the #4 and #5 G5 champs and would pay less. Over the next 5 years the G5 could amass a war chest of nearly 25 million dollars to launch these bowls. Once started---I see no reason why such high quality bowls would not be self sufficient or even generate a nice profit. Thus, once the bowls start, the G5 annual 5 million contribution to fund the bowls can end or be greatly reduced.

The second thing the G5 could do is band together and negotiate the entire G5 game package as a group. Thats half the FBS inventory under one agent. That would give the G5 more negotiating leverage than they currently have. The problem there is the AAC, which makes substantially more than the rest of the G5 would probably want to opt out of such a package. While the "group negotiation" method would likely produce more total revenue for the G5 group as a whole---the AAC probably would not get as large a revenue stream as they would negotiating on their own.

This is the fly in the ointment for any G5 cooperation. There’s no incentive for the AAC to participate when it likely results in less pay, visibility and bowl games than the current setup. With all G5 media contracts being recently negotiated and fair market valued, the AAC makes more than the other conferences combined. There’s only one way to go if you’re the AAC and it isn’t up under a G5 collective agreement.

That's certainly true for the regular season TV packages. But for the bowls? To me, the AAC bowl lineup isn't any better than the other G5 bowl lineups. They are sad all around. So if something creative can be done collectively with the G5 bowls to generate more interest, then it may well be worth it to the AAC to participate.

I don't have time to check wikipedia tonight, but IIRC, the AAC has from 2-4 bowls a year against 6-6 P5 teams--Military Bowl, Birmingham Bowl, an occasional P5 in St Petersburg or DFW.

Everyone would rather play a 6-6 ACC team than a 10-3 G5 team, especially the AAC

It's actually better than that:
*Most years NY6 At large
Fenway vs ACC
Birmingham vs SEC
Military vs ACC
Armed Forces vs B12
Gasparillo vs SEC*

Independence vs PAC, BYU, or Army 3 year cycle
*Liberty Bowl if SEC or ACC cant fill a spot
*First Responder Bowl vs B12 if not in Gasparilllo

Hawaii Bowl or New Mexico Bowl vs MWC/CUSA whichever ESPN can make a good matchup for.

Boca Raton, Cure, Frisco, and Myrtle Beach are in the ESPN pool if we have more teams qualify.

5 would be the minimum vs P5 in a non Covid year.

(12-28-2020 01:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 11:30 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 11:21 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 07:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A G5 organization will never get off the ground because the AAC and MWC consider themselves a step above the rest.

Possibly, but the AAC and MWC would get nowhere by themselves, since they have practically zero leverage.

Think of it this way - The two biggest American colonies (e.g., Virginia and one other) didn't try to go it alone against Great Britain. Why? Because they knew that they had no chance! Their only chance would be to get all 13 colonies to band together and then find an outside supporter.

The situation is very similar. The AAC and MWC's only chance of success would be to band together - - and that means an organization of 65 non-P5s to offset the power of the 65 P5s.

and where does the money come from to do this , ESPN, yup, i believe they want two leagues

If they do want two leagues, it is a relatively recent change of mind on their part.

They were the ones who caused the P5/G5 split in the first place, seeing it as an opportunity to turn the top conferences into a semi-professionalized "mini-NFL."

It worked fine for a few years, but then problems started to pop up. The P5s all negotiated extremely lucrative broadcasting agreements, which reduced the networks' profitability. For example, a 10 team league with $50 million per school/per year payments will costs the network a minimum of $5 billion per decade in per-school compensation, alone.

Viewership cannot increase at a steep enough clip to maintain profitability at those levels. The existing model, based on an ongoing series of increases may not be sustainable, and even if it is, network profitability will be adversely affected.

.

The networks seem to have created the equivalent of a Frankensteinian broadcasting partner/monster in the form of the current P5, though they would of course deny the suggestion vociferously.

.

There have been more and more signals in recent years that the only way that ESPN/etc. can prevent themselves from being destroyed by this monstrosity of their own creation is by creating a more well-behaved and less threatening rival to its Frankenstein that will go toe to toe with him and bring him to heel.

.

The most telling signs include the new AAC and MWC broadcasting agreements, as well as the relatively recent agreements with the MAC, CUSA, and SBC. They also include efforts on the part of the networks to promote their non-P5 teams and games, and to encourage opportunities to broadcast contests between the P5 and non-P5 teams.

.

Clearly, the major sports networks view their non-P5 conferences and teams as valued partners, and they recognize that their ability to remain highly profitable may depend in large measure on their ability to take advantage of the opportunity that the non-P5 conferences will present them with in the coming years.

ESPN is calling the shots and you're right they've created a power conference structure that is collapsing on itself.

BCS worked much better with 6 conferences from 8-12 members in size each competing for a slot in a BCS bowl game. They had a 1/8 to a 1/12 chance of making one. Smaller conferences and easier to be in the Top 3.

CFP is 4 slots for 65 power teams. That gives them a 1/16 chance at making it. More difficult to make the Top 3. Recruiting has become top heavy to just a few programs with a realistic shot.

The BCS label helped to spread talent around while the P5 label in of itself doesn't seem to mean that much. Honestly the P5/P6 label has become more of a factor in basketball where the realignment has consolidated strength.

Cracks in FB hegemony were beginning to show with Boise and Utah in the BCS era, a couple programs recruiting BCS level classes. They are even wider in the CFP ear with much of the AAC doing it and all the new programs like Liberty, Coastal and App St out there appearing in the Top 25.

A playoff expansion to 8 teams with 5 autobids doesn't solve the problem of how difficult its become for Northwestern or Vanderbilt to actually win their conferences of 14 teams and then prevail in a championship game against a larger, better resourced opponent to grab that autobid.

In a G5 CCG there is going to be a favorite but it won't be 5 stars against 3 stars like you'll find in a lopsided P5 CCG where the talent differential is off the charts.

(12-28-2020 09:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-28-2020 02:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-28-2020 01:49 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 03:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 02:34 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  The commissioners could start out promptly enough, and despite the pandemic constraints, by planning to have a series of informal weekly or bi-weekly luncheon-type meetings to share and commiserate about some of their common interests and concerns on zoom.

To maximize their ultimate chances of success from the standpoint of mutual empowerment, they could offer the Presidents of the independent FBS schools, as a group, the opportunity to be represented by someone who would have the same level of participation in the discussions as the 5 G5 commissioners.

Their informal lunch meetings could evolve into brainstorming sessions that would generate ideas as to how they might be able to promote the interests of the non-P5 schools and conferences.

There might be enough common ground to lead to a consensus about certain actions that the commissioners might like to take, as a group.

In order to make progress without getting caught up in the details, they might elect to set up committees, comprised of members from their staffs, or otherwise appointed. These committees could coordinate their efforts and meet independently, as needed.

After a period of months, the commissioners might formulate a proposal to form a working group with the goal of exploring the option of forming a coalition or an association with a formal title and logo, a regular staff, and periodic meetings among the commissioners or their representatives.

Within a year or two, they might consider appointing a rotating commissioner for the organization, from among their ranks, whom they and the leadership of their conferences could empower to hold discussions with the NCAA, the news media, congressional representatives, the P5 conferences, the networks, etc.

As a formal entity, this organization would have a great deal more power and influence than the individual G5 conferences currently have. It would have the ability to sponsor events (tournaments, bowl games, etc.), to intervene as needed on behalf of its constituents, and to negotiate on behalf of its member institutions for fairer and more equitable opportunities.

.

Starting from a few informal conversations, it wouldn't be difficult for them to organize themselves, at first, into an informal working group, and then into something approaching a formal coalition, evolving into a full-fledged mutual-empowerment organization to represent the interests of the nearly 70 non-P5 FBS universities within 2-3 years.

I only see two things that a coalition of the G5 could do that would be "positive".

One--would be to band together and pledge a portion (say 5 million a year) of the 85 million dollar G5 pay out to go toward building a "Champions Series" of bowl games designed to provide a good "high pay out" landing spot for the 4 G5 champs not heading to the access bowl. The bowls would be owned by the G5.

I would have there be 2 bowl games where the #2 and #3 G5 champs play the top P5 school the G5 can lure for the money (the P5 payout for these bowls would rival the CFP bowls). The third bowl would pit the #4 and #5 G5 champs and would pay less. Over the next 5 years the G5 could amass a war chest of nearly 25 million dollars to launch these bowls. Once started---I see no reason why such high quality bowls would not be self sufficient or even generate a nice profit. Thus, once the bowls start, the G5 annual 5 million contribution to fund the bowls can end or be greatly reduced.

The second thing the G5 could do is band together and negotiate the entire G5 game package as a group. Thats half the FBS inventory under one agent. That would give the G5 more negotiating leverage than they currently have. The problem there is the AAC, which makes substantially more than the rest of the G5 would probably want to opt out of such a package. While the "group negotiation" method would likely produce more total revenue for the G5 group as a whole---the AAC probably would not get as large a revenue stream as they would negotiating on their own.

This is the fly in the ointment for any G5 cooperation. There’s no incentive for the AAC to participate when it likely results in less pay, visibility and bowl games than the current setup. With all G5 media contracts being recently negotiated and fair market valued, the AAC makes more than the other conferences combined. There’s only one way to go if you’re the AAC and it isn’t up under a G5 collective agreement.

That's certainly true for the regular season TV packages. But for the bowls? To me, the AAC bowl lineup isn't any better than the other G5 bowl lineups. They are sad all around. So if something creative can be done collectively with the G5 bowls to generate more interest, then it may well be worth it to the AAC to participate.

I don't have time to check wikipedia tonight, but IIRC, the AAC has from 2-4 bowls a year against 6-6 P5 teams--Military Bowl, Birmingham Bowl, an occasional P5 in St Petersburg or DFW.

Everyone would rather play a 6-6 ACC team than a 10-3 G5 team, especially the AAC

You're looking at the past, man, like a lot of people, but things are clearly changing.

Why? Because a 6-6 AAC team isn't going to be ranked in the top 50 nationally, whereas a 10-3 Sun Belt, MWC, or AAC is going to be ranked in the top 25.

Yes - - there are still a lot of college football "dinosaurs" who haven't been paying attention to the top 25 lists of recent years. To many of them with their long-worn (but ill-informed) views, the P5 teams are still 'the cat's meow" of college sports...but not for much longer.

As the younger generations of fans have already discovered, the trends are rapidly changing, with 7 of the top 25 and 10+ of the top 30 teams being non-P5 teams.

(12-29-2020 12:11 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(12-28-2020 01:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 11:30 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 11:21 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 07:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A G5 organization will never get off the ground because the AAC and MWC consider themselves a step above the rest.

Possibly, but the AAC and MWC would get nowhere by themselves, since they have practically zero leverage.

Think of it this way - The two biggest American colonies (e.g., Virginia and one other) didn't try to go it alone against Great Britain. Why? Because they knew that they had no chance! Their only chance would be to get all 13 colonies to band together and then find an outside supporter.

The situation is very similar. The AAC and MWC's only chance of success would be to band together - - and that means an organization of 65 non-P5s to offset the power of the 65 P5s.

and where does the money come from to do this , ESPN, yup, i believe they want two leagues

If they do want two leagues, it is a relatively recent change of mind on their part.

They were the ones who caused the P5/G5 split in the first place, seeing it as an opportunity to turn the top conferences into a semi-professionalized "mini-NFL."

It worked fine for a few years, but then problems started to pop up. The P5s all negotiated extremely lucrative broadcasting agreements, which reduced the networks' profitability. For example, a 10 team league with $50 million per school/per year payments will costs the network a minimum of $5 billion per decade in per-school compensation, alone.

Viewership cannot increase at a steep enough clip to maintain profitability at those levels. The existing model, based on an ongoing series of increases may not be sustainable, and even if it is, network profitability will be adversely affected.

.

The networks seem to have created the equivalent of a Frankensteinian broadcasting partner/monster in the form of the current P5, though they would of course deny the suggestion vociferously.

.

There have been more and more signals in recent years that the only way that ESPN/etc. can prevent themselves from being destroyed by this monstrosity of their own creation is by creating a more well-behaved and less threatening rival to its Frankenstein that will go toe to toe with him and bring him to heel.

.

The most telling signs include the new AAC and MWC broadcasting agreements, as well as the relatively recent agreements with the MAC, CUSA, and SBC. They also include efforts on the part of the networks to promote their non-P5 teams and games, and to encourage opportunities to broadcast contests between the P5 and non-P5 teams.

.

Clearly, the major sports networks view their non-P5 conferences and teams as valued partners, and they recognize that their ability to remain highly profitable may depend in large measure on their ability to take advantage of the opportunity that the non-P5 conferences will present them with in the coming years.

ESPN is calling the shots and you're right they've created a power conference structure that is collapsing on itself.

BCS worked much better with 6 conferences from 8-12 members in size each competing for a slot in a BCS bowl game. They had a 1/8 to a 1/12 chance of making one. Smaller conferences and easier to be in the Top 3.

CFP is 4 slots for 65 power teams. That gives them a 1/16 chance at making it. More difficult to make the Top 3. Recruiting has become top heavy to just a few programs with a realistic shot.

The BCS label helped to spread talent around while the P5 label in of itself doesn't seem to mean that much. Honestly the P5/P6 label has become more of a factor in basketball where the realignment has consolidated strength.

Cracks in FB hegemony were beginning to show with Boise and Utah in the BCS era, a couple programs recruiting BCS level classes. They are even wider in the CFP ear with much of the AAC doing it and all the new programs like Liberty, Coastal and App St out there appearing in the Top 25.

A playoff expansion to 8 teams with 5 autobids doesn't solve the problem of how difficult its become for Northwestern or Vanderbilt to actually win their conferences of 14 teams and then prevail in a championship game against a larger, better resourced opponent to grab that autobid.

In a G5 CCG there is going to be a favorite but it won't be 5 stars against 3 stars like you'll find in a lopsided P5 CCG where the talent differential is off the charts.

Indeed. As a Cincinnati fan, my initial perception when the football Big East was broken up, the BCS was blown up and the CFP era was ushered in was the plan was to choke out and kill programs like Boise, Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, etc who the old guard saw as harming the P5 middle to lower class schools in recruiting, bowl participation and media exposure. Its actually been the opposite-- the middle to lower class P5 schools are now further behind the P5 elites, as the elites are recruiting at a higher level than they were in the BCS era. The upper class G5 are still recruiting well and grabbing top transfers from P5 schools who want an opportunity to play for a conference championship and potentially a NY6 Bowl (something they did not have before).

If there is going to be a split-- it probably would make more sense for the P5 middle class and below to merge with the upper G5.

(12-29-2020 08:39 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 12:11 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(12-28-2020 01:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 11:30 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 11:21 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  Possibly, but the AAC and MWC would get nowhere by themselves, since they have practically zero leverage.

Think of it this way - The two biggest American colonies (e.g., Virginia and one other) didn't try to go it alone against Great Britain. Why? Because they knew that they had no chance! Their only chance would be to get all 13 colonies to band together and then find an outside supporter.

The situation is very similar. The AAC and MWC's only chance of success would be to band together - - and that means an organization of 65 non-P5s to offset the power of the 65 P5s.

and where does the money come from to do this , ESPN, yup, i believe they want two leagues

If they do want two leagues, it is a relatively recent change of mind on their part.

They were the ones who caused the P5/G5 split in the first place, seeing it as an opportunity to turn the top conferences into a semi-professionalized "mini-NFL."

It worked fine for a few years, but then problems started to pop up. The P5s all negotiated extremely lucrative broadcasting agreements, which reduced the networks' profitability. For example, a 10 team league with $50 million per school/per year payments will costs the network a minimum of $5 billion per decade in per-school compensation, alone.

Viewership cannot increase at a steep enough clip to maintain profitability at those levels. The existing model, based on an ongoing series of increases may not be sustainable, and even if it is, network profitability will be adversely affected.

.

The networks seem to have created the equivalent of a Frankensteinian broadcasting partner/monster in the form of the current P5, though they would of course deny the suggestion vociferously.

.

There have been more and more signals in recent years that the only way that ESPN/etc. can prevent themselves from being destroyed by this monstrosity of their own creation is by creating a more well-behaved and less threatening rival to its Frankenstein that will go toe to toe with him and bring him to heel.

.

The most telling signs include the new AAC and MWC broadcasting agreements, as well as the relatively recent agreements with the MAC, CUSA, and SBC. They also include efforts on the part of the networks to promote their non-P5 teams and games, and to encourage opportunities to broadcast contests between the P5 and non-P5 teams.

.

Clearly, the major sports networks view their non-P5 conferences and teams as valued partners, and they recognize that their ability to remain highly profitable may depend in large measure on their ability to take advantage of the opportunity that the non-P5 conferences will present them with in the coming years.

ESPN is calling the shots and you're right they've created a power conference structure that is collapsing on itself.

BCS worked much better with 6 conferences from 8-12 members in size each competing for a slot in a BCS bowl game. They had a 1/8 to a 1/12 chance of making one. Smaller conferences and easier to be in the Top 3.

CFP is 4 slots for 65 power teams. That gives them a 1/16 chance at making it. More difficult to make the Top 3. Recruiting has become top heavy to just a few programs with a realistic shot.

The BCS label helped to spread talent around while the P5 label in of itself doesn't seem to mean that much. Honestly the P5/P6 label has become more of a factor in basketball where the realignment has consolidated strength.

Cracks in FB hegemony were beginning to show with Boise and Utah in the BCS era, a couple programs recruiting BCS level classes. They are even wider in the CFP ear with much of the AAC doing it and all the new programs like Liberty, Coastal and App St out there appearing in the Top 25.

A playoff expansion to 8 teams with 5 autobids doesn't solve the problem of how difficult its become for Northwestern or Vanderbilt to actually win their conferences of 14 teams and then prevail in a championship game against a larger, better resourced opponent to grab that autobid.

In a G5 CCG there is going to be a favorite but it won't be 5 stars against 3 stars like you'll find in a lopsided P5 CCG where the talent differential is off the charts.

Indeed. As a Cincinnati fan, my initial perception when the football Big East was broken up, the BCS was blown up and the CFP era was ushered in was the plan was to choke out and kill programs like Boise, Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, etc who the old guard saw as harming the P5 middle to lower class schools in recruiting, bowl participation and media exposure. Its actually been the opposite-- the middle to lower class P5 schools are now further behind the P5 elites, as the elites are recruiting at a higher level than they were in the BCS era. The upper class G5 are still recruiting well and grabbing top transfers from P5 schools who want an opportunity to play for a conference championship and potentially a NY6 Bowl (something they did not have before).

The few top P5 schools have grown, out of control, like cancerous tumors, while other parts of the body of conference teams have starved, at least in the Big Ten.

It's starting to look as though the P5 has been taken over by the Borg and someone has initiated the "auto-destruct sequence."

This is what happens when the NCAA can be bought and sold for a price, when the noble ideal of amateur athletics goes out the window, and when a few schools are given carte blanche and allowed unchecked domination of college sports.

One of the biggest flaws I see in the 4 team playoff is that for really good teams, anything short of that 4 team field is a disappointment.

Is a Cotton Bowl trip really that exciting if it’s not a semi final that year? At least in BCS 8 and then later 10 teams felt like they were at the pinnacle of achievement for the season. Now that number is 4.

(12-26-2020 02:21 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  We have now reached a point of critical mass where it has become clear to an overwhelming majority of the general public and media that the CFP officials are no longer credible when they claim the G5 has a path to the playoff in the current system.

I'm not sure anyone who you'd consider The Powers That Be seriously claim that, though. There are schools of thought within the Establishment: "the G5 just don't belong in the playoff" vs "maybe a G5 could qualify one day if all the stars line up, maybe, I guess / We definitely should give UCF a shot if they go 14-0 one year and are 13-0 the next year".

It's not like the CFP committee even pretends very hard that the G5 has a chance at the playoff. Y'all get the Access Bowl. That's what you get.

In fairness to the committee though, nobody else has "thought" any G5 team of the past seven years has deserved a playoff spot. Not either of the human polls, nor BCS formula, nor large aggregates of computers.

The reality is, making a 4-team playoff from a 130-team pool is extremely difficult. You can be a *great* team and still not merit it. Several reporters wrote scathing articles denouncing the CFP for ranking Cincy at #9 in their final ranking instead of #6 like the AP has them. But what's the difference? #6 doesn't get you in the playoffs any more than #9 does.

People here constantly yammer about the difference between CFB and other "leagues" in terms of playoff determination method, conference autobids and the like. But the real difference is playoff size. In the NFL, about 40% of the teams make the playoffs. In college hoops, it's about 25%. In CFB it is 3%.

The truth is, no G5 school has ever been ranked by anyone as a top-4 team, so no G5 school has ever been judged by anyone to be evidence that the CFP systematically discriminates against G5 teams.