Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
[split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
Author Message
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,563
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 627
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #61
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-09-2021 11:27 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Neat idea about Indies being a G6. Requiring them to schedule all other indies may be too onerous, especially because the roster of Independent teams can be rather fluid and schedules are made so far in advance. Maybe a 3 or 4 game requirement, with those unable or unwilling to schedule that many simply being eligible for the at large spot. Such a change may induce Texas independence. I still think the top G5 will get a NY6 (or equivalent) spot.

I’d disagree with looping in the independents with the G5 slots because it then it becomes a de facto Notre Dame bid in many years (and I’m someone that generally thinks that a lot of fans complain about ND’s supposed advantages too much). In my mind, ND (and by extension, every other independent) should be treated the same as any P5 non-champ as an at-large - they shouldn’t be given an advantage over them and they also shouldn’t be disadvantaged against them, either.

As always, my motto is K.I.S.S.: Keep It Simple Stupid.

All P5 champs, the top G5 champ and 2 at-large bids. None of this “top 6 conference champs” or other rankings qualifiers for the P5 champs where it ends up that it would be easier to just have a “straight 8” playoff. You get some objectivity with the inclusion of all P5 champs, some subjectivity with the inclusion of 2 at-large bids, and the G5 leagues get their one golden ticket slot.

Separately, as I’ve stated elsewhere, for BYU, playoff/top bowl access and even more conference money pales in comparison to having to suffer being *structurally* inferior to Utah (who is in a P5 league). As long as Utah is in the Pac-12 or another P5 league, BYU will simply NOT join a G5 league. The ND/Indiana comparison above in this thread is totally correct (as BYU sees itself in the ND position in that comparison). Maybe it’s about ego, maybe it’s about control, maybe it’s about pride, maybe it’s about things that we aren’t even considering... but at a minimum, BYU can tell itself and its stakeholders that it can pull off independence a la ND in a way that Utah can’t do (which, to be fair, is somewhat true), while joining the AAC or another G5 league would be a *structural* admission of inferiority. The emphasis is on *structural* inferiority as opposed to anything about competitiveness on the field or playoff access.

We see a thread about this nearly every week and I believe that it’s about as likely that ND will join a G5 league as it would be for BYU (meaning that there’s no chance). The “playing for something” argument of a conference championship that I see from a lot of G5 games is meaningless to BYU in a G5 league when Utah is sitting in the Pac-12. I can’t emphasize that enough,
01-09-2021 05:10 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,563
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 627
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #62
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-09-2021 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Given Cincinnati and Memphis years ago fielded independent football programs, I tend to look at this issue very broadly.

On one hand, and not counting Notre Dame, there is "special-ness" to the current indy programs, both individually and collectively — in part because their are so few. In fact, I can see how some fans might view the handful of of FBS independents, in some ways, as "superior" to those programs in the G5.

But overall, I would think most fans view the G5, and particularly the AAC and the Mountain West, as more stable and influential than the indies. BYU and Army are different animals, but I doubt they are not viewed as "better overall" than all G5 programs (though clearly "better in some respects" than many).

Liberty might be able to make it long-term as an independent because it has money and, like BYU, a "national following" (with evangelical Christians).

You have to wonder about New Mexico State, UMass and UConn. At some point, and with future realignment, I could envision a scenario in which each of those is a member of an all-sports conference. We know each of the three would prefer that to their current situations.

Agree with most of this except for UConn. The AAC is really the only all-sports conference that would make any sense for UConn (outside of a P5 prayer) and they actively left it in order to join the Big East for basketball. (FWIW, I think that made a whole lot of sense for UConn’s specific circumstances. The Big East is looked at as closer to a peer to the P5 for basketball purposes and that has a trickle-down effect to the rest of the university.)
01-09-2021 05:13 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,650
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 574
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #63
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-09-2021 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 11:27 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Neat idea about Indies being a G6. Requiring them to schedule all other indies may be too onerous, especially because the roster of Independent teams can be rather fluid and schedules are made so far in advance. Maybe a 3 or 4 game requirement, with those unable or unwilling to schedule that many simply being eligible for the at large spot. Such a change may induce Texas independence. I still think the top G5 will get a NY6 (or equivalent) spot.

I’d disagree with looping in the independents with the G5 slots because it then it becomes a de facto Notre Dame bid in many years (and I’m someone that generally thinks that a lot of fans complain about ND’s supposed advantages too much). In my mind, ND (and by extension, every other independent) should be treated the same as any P5 non-champ as an at-large - they shouldn’t be given an advantage over them and they also shouldn’t be disadvantaged against them, either.

That's not a de facto Notre Dame bid, even if they are always the top ranked indy. They still need to be highly ranked period. Only once #15 in 2019) would they have gotten a bid when they were ranked outside the top 8.

I'm also thinking that my model could also have an interesting unintended consequence. It could possibly take a school that was considering going independent and carry them over the finish line. As an example, might that prompt Texas to strike a Notre Dame/ACC type of deal with the Big 12 in which they agree to play Oklahoma every year and four other B12 opponents every year in exchange for having a home for their other sports. That could keep the B12 from breaking up by virtue of having UT and OU leaving at the same time.

Now imagine that quasi-conference which includes the Irish, the Horns and BYU, all of which play each other every year. If the people paying the bills, like ESPN and Fox, are motivated by the prospect of late season games involving ND and UT that have playoff implications, this isn't a bad deal.

This is an 8 team playoff with no autobids that still rewards teams for winning conference championships. It just doesn't reward P5 teams who win their conference only because their conference was weak.
01-09-2021 06:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,825
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1163
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #64
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-09-2021 06:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 11:27 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Neat idea about Indies being a G6. Requiring them to schedule all other indies may be too onerous, especially because the roster of Independent teams can be rather fluid and schedules are made so far in advance. Maybe a 3 or 4 game requirement, with those unable or unwilling to schedule that many simply being eligible for the at large spot. Such a change may induce Texas independence. I still think the top G5 will get a NY6 (or equivalent) spot.

I’d disagree with looping in the independents with the G5 slots because it then it becomes a de facto Notre Dame bid in many years (and I’m someone that generally thinks that a lot of fans complain about ND’s supposed advantages too much). In my mind, ND (and by extension, every other independent) should be treated the same as any P5 non-champ as an at-large - they shouldn’t be given an advantage over them and they also shouldn’t be disadvantaged against them, either.

That's not a de facto Notre Dame bid, even if they are always the top ranked indy. They still need to be highly ranked period. Only once #15 in 2019) would they have gotten a bid when they were ranked outside the top 8.

Yes, if history is a guide, Notre Dame would not claim jump that much because they often make the top 8 (3 times in 7 years).

The biggest "de facto" situation would be Frank's "KISS" version of 5/1/2, where the "1" would be a de facto AAC bid probably 80% of the time. It would not give much access at all to other G5.
(This post was last modified: 01-09-2021 06:35 PM by quo vadis.)
01-09-2021 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,563
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 627
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #65
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-09-2021 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 11:27 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Neat idea about Indies being a G6. Requiring them to schedule all other indies may be too onerous, especially because the roster of Independent teams can be rather fluid and schedules are made so far in advance. Maybe a 3 or 4 game requirement, with those unable or unwilling to schedule that many simply being eligible for the at large spot. Such a change may induce Texas independence. I still think the top G5 will get a NY6 (or equivalent) spot.

I’d disagree with looping in the independents with the G5 slots because it then it becomes a de facto Notre Dame bid in many years (and I’m someone that generally thinks that a lot of fans complain about ND’s supposed advantages too much). In my mind, ND (and by extension, every other independent) should be treated the same as any P5 non-champ as an at-large - they shouldn’t be given an advantage over them and they also shouldn’t be disadvantaged against them, either.

That's not a de facto Notre Dame bid, even if they are always the top ranked indy. They still need to be highly ranked period. Only once #15 in 2019) would they have gotten a bid when they were ranked outside the top 8.

Yes, if history is a guide, Notre Dame would not claim jump that much because they often make the top 8 (3 times in 7 years).

The biggest "de facto" situation would be Frank's "KISS" version of 5/1/2, where the "1" would be a de facto AAC bid probably 80% of the time. It would not give much access at all to other G5.

That’s how it’s shaking out right now, although I think that the onus is on the other G5 conferences there to avoid that AAC strength continuing going forward.

Personally, I’d actually be all for the top 2 G5 champs facing off against each other for a playoff spot every year (essentially creating a “G5 Championship Game”). The G5 leagues can then split the revenue from that game in the same manner that the P5 leagues get outsized revenue from their own conference championship games that would become straight up playoff games in an auto-bid system. (Logistically, I think that this would require the G5 leagues to determine their champs by Thanksgiving weekend and then the G5 Championship Game would be played on championship weekend.)

This continues with my theme that the playoff *race* itself is really what’s key even more than who actually makes the playoff itself. That setup would make any G5 school that’s still in its conference championship race at least have a hope for a playoff race, which I think would have a huge downstream impact on increasing the number of meaningful regular season games for many more teams.
01-09-2021 07:30 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,569
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 140
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #66
[split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-09-2021 07:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 11:27 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Neat idea about Indies being a G6. Requiring them to schedule all other indies may be too onerous, especially because the roster of Independent teams can be rather fluid and schedules are made so far in advance. Maybe a 3 or 4 game requirement, with those unable or unwilling to schedule that many simply being eligible for the at large spot. Such a change may induce Texas independence. I still think the top G5 will get a NY6 (or equivalent) spot.

I’d disagree with looping in the independents with the G5 slots because it then it becomes a de facto Notre Dame bid in many years (and I’m someone that generally thinks that a lot of fans complain about ND’s supposed advantages too much). In my mind, ND (and by extension, every other independent) should be treated the same as any P5 non-champ as an at-large - they shouldn’t be given an advantage over them and they also shouldn’t be disadvantaged against them, either.

That's not a de facto Notre Dame bid, even if they are always the top ranked indy. They still need to be highly ranked period. Only once #15 in 2019) would they have gotten a bid when they were ranked outside the top 8.

Yes, if history is a guide, Notre Dame would not claim jump that much because they often make the top 8 (3 times in 7 years).

The biggest "de facto" situation would be Frank's "KISS" version of 5/1/2, where the "1" would be a de facto AAC bid probably 80% of the time. It would not give much access at all to other G5.

That’s how it’s shaking out right now, although I think that the onus is on the other G5 conferences there to avoid that AAC strength continuing going forward.

Personally, I’d actually be all for the top 2 G5 champs facing off against each other for a playoff spot every year (essentially creating a “G5 Championship Game”). The G5 leagues can then split the revenue from that game in the same manner that the P5 leagues get outsized revenue from their own conference championship games that would become straight up playoff games in an auto-bid system. (Logistically, I think that this would require the G5 leagues to determine their champs by Thanksgiving weekend and then the G5 Championship Game would be played on championship weekend.)

This continues with my theme that the playoff *race* itself is really what’s key even more than who actually makes the playoff itself. That setup would make any G5 school that’s still in its conference championship race at least have a hope for a playoff race, which I think would have a huge downstream impact on increasing the number of meaningful regular season games for many more teams.


Coaches would hate it

Tv would love it

Sun Belt/MAC/CUSA teams would probably like it kore
01-09-2021 09:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,368
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1707
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #67
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
AAC doesn't "own" the G5 slot.

They may dominate it in the future if recent years improve their recruiting, but they aren't there yet. Its going to go to an undefeated G5 team if there is one, regardless of the conference they are in. And then the MWC will be more competitive with the AAC if its a 1 loss team than many of you seem to think.
01-09-2021 09:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,825
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1163
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #68
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-09-2021 07:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 11:27 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Neat idea about Indies being a G6. Requiring them to schedule all other indies may be too onerous, especially because the roster of Independent teams can be rather fluid and schedules are made so far in advance. Maybe a 3 or 4 game requirement, with those unable or unwilling to schedule that many simply being eligible for the at large spot. Such a change may induce Texas independence. I still think the top G5 will get a NY6 (or equivalent) spot.

I’d disagree with looping in the independents with the G5 slots because it then it becomes a de facto Notre Dame bid in many years (and I’m someone that generally thinks that a lot of fans complain about ND’s supposed advantages too much). In my mind, ND (and by extension, every other independent) should be treated the same as any P5 non-champ as an at-large - they shouldn’t be given an advantage over them and they also shouldn’t be disadvantaged against them, either.

That's not a de facto Notre Dame bid, even if they are always the top ranked indy. They still need to be highly ranked period. Only once #15 in 2019) would they have gotten a bid when they were ranked outside the top 8.

Yes, if history is a guide, Notre Dame would not claim jump that much because they often make the top 8 (3 times in 7 years).

The biggest "de facto" situation would be Frank's "KISS" version of 5/1/2, where the "1" would be a de facto AAC bid probably 80% of the time. It would not give much access at all to other G5.

That’s how it’s shaking out right now, although I think that the onus is on the other G5 conferences there to avoid that AAC strength continuing going forward.

Personally, I’d actually be all for the top 2 G5 champs facing off against each other for a playoff spot every year (essentially creating a “G5 Championship Game”).

Yes, a G5 title game would undermine the AAC - bias that a ranking committee is likely to have, as seen in this year's relative ranking of Cincy vs Coastal. That would be a good idea if we must have a 5/1/2.

Otherwise, there's really no reason for the other G5 to go along with what would likely be a de facto bid for the AAC, further allowing them to progress their "P6" campaign.
01-09-2021 10:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,730
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 185
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #69
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-09-2021 05:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 01:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Given Cincinnati and Memphis years ago fielded independent football programs, I tend to look at this issue very broadly.

On one hand, and not counting Notre Dame, there is "special-ness" to the current indy programs, both individually and collectively — in part because their are so few. In fact, I can see how some fans might view the handful of of FBS independents, in some ways, as "superior" to those programs in the G5.

But overall, I would think most fans view the G5, and particularly the AAC and the Mountain West, as more stable and influential than the indies. BYU and Army are different animals, but I doubt they are not viewed as "better overall" than all G5 programs (though clearly "better in some respects" than many).

Liberty might be able to make it long-term as an independent because it has money and, like BYU, a "national following" (with evangelical Christians).

You have to wonder about New Mexico State, UMass and UConn. At some point, and with future realignment, I could envision a scenario in which each of those is a member of an all-sports conference. We know each of the three would prefer that to their current situations.

Agree with most of this except for UConn. The AAC is really the only all-sports conference that would make any sense for UConn (outside of a P5 prayer) and they actively left it in order to join the Big East for basketball. (FWIW, I think that made a whole lot of sense for UConn’s specific circumstances. The Big East is looked at as closer to a peer to the P5 for basketball purposes and that has a trickle-down effect to the rest of the university.)


My thinking was that if the current ACC, or a future iteration of that league after some substantial conference realignment, invited UConn ... UConn jumps.

Barring that scenario, UConn is exactly where it needs to be: in the Big East for Olympic sports and indy in football.
01-09-2021 10:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,138
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 135
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #70
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
I suspect UConn will try to emulate BYU scheduling with UMass resources and success, but, if independent for the long haul, and actually successful, the committee might look at them with a positive bias.

As for the AAC “owning” the G5 slot...I don’t know if I disagree. There wasn’t much Coastal could do, and I doubt if BYU got the better of Coastal, they wouldn’t have eclipsed Cincy, either. Nobody was going to pay attention to Buffalo and San Jose State. It’s not that I think the AAC will be the default choice...but, if it’s Cincy, Houston, UCF, or Navy? Probably getting more attention than most of the others. Maybe Boise. But, it’s all name cache. The committee, I believe, has clear favorites.

As I expressed earlier, I wonder where an undefeated Navy would fall. It would mean AAC champ and a win over Notre Dame at the very least. I feel like they are a sentimental favorite, but people don’t respect their potential to others.
01-10-2021 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,563
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 627
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #71
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-09-2021 10:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 07:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’d disagree with looping in the independents with the G5 slots because it then it becomes a de facto Notre Dame bid in many years (and I’m someone that generally thinks that a lot of fans complain about ND’s supposed advantages too much). In my mind, ND (and by extension, every other independent) should be treated the same as any P5 non-champ as an at-large - they shouldn’t be given an advantage over them and they also shouldn’t be disadvantaged against them, either.

That's not a de facto Notre Dame bid, even if they are always the top ranked indy. They still need to be highly ranked period. Only once #15 in 2019) would they have gotten a bid when they were ranked outside the top 8.

Yes, if history is a guide, Notre Dame would not claim jump that much because they often make the top 8 (3 times in 7 years).

The biggest "de facto" situation would be Frank's "KISS" version of 5/1/2, where the "1" would be a de facto AAC bid probably 80% of the time. It would not give much access at all to other G5.

That’s how it’s shaking out right now, although I think that the onus is on the other G5 conferences there to avoid that AAC strength continuing going forward.

Personally, I’d actually be all for the top 2 G5 champs facing off against each other for a playoff spot every year (essentially creating a “G5 Championship Game”).

Yes, a G5 title game would undermine the AAC - bias that a ranking committee is likely to have, as seen in this year's relative ranking of Cincy vs Coastal. That would be a good idea if we must have a 5/1/2.

Otherwise, there's really no reason for the other G5 to go along with what would likely be a de facto bid for the AAC, further allowing them to progress their "P6" campaign.

It would be interesting to see if the AAC would support that G5 championship game. On the one hand, all things being equal, the AAC champ is in the driver’s seat for the top G5 champ slot already. On the other hand, in those years where Boise State gets its act together or some random G5 team runs the table out of nowhere (like Western Michigan a few years ago), the AAC has some downside protection in still being able to get a head-to-head G5 championship matchup for a shot at the playoff instead of getting knocked out from the get go by the committee.

I’ve always said that university presidents and conference commissioners worry much more about protecting themselves in the worst case scenario than they do about shooting the moon in the best case scenario. So, I would think that a G5 championship would ultimately be looked upon favorably by the AAC (as more chances to reduce risk in down years are more valuable than maximizing returns in great years).
01-10-2021 11:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 10,196
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 402
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #72
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-10-2021 11:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 10:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 07:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  That's not a de facto Notre Dame bid, even if they are always the top ranked indy. They still need to be highly ranked period. Only once #15 in 2019) would they have gotten a bid when they were ranked outside the top 8.

Yes, if history is a guide, Notre Dame would not claim jump that much because they often make the top 8 (3 times in 7 years).

The biggest "de facto" situation would be Frank's "KISS" version of 5/1/2, where the "1" would be a de facto AAC bid probably 80% of the time. It would not give much access at all to other G5.

That’s how it’s shaking out right now, although I think that the onus is on the other G5 conferences there to avoid that AAC strength continuing going forward.

Personally, I’d actually be all for the top 2 G5 champs facing off against each other for a playoff spot every year (essentially creating a “G5 Championship Game”).

Yes, a G5 title game would undermine the AAC - bias that a ranking committee is likely to have, as seen in this year's relative ranking of Cincy vs Coastal. That would be a good idea if we must have a 5/1/2.

Otherwise, there's really no reason for the other G5 to go along with what would likely be a de facto bid for the AAC, further allowing them to progress their "P6" campaign.

It would be interesting to see if the AAC would support that G5 championship game. On the one hand, all things being equal, the AAC champ is in the driver’s seat for the top G5 champ slot already. On the other hand, in those years where Boise State gets its act together or some random G5 team runs the table out of nowhere (like Western Michigan a few years ago), the AAC has some downside protection in still being able to get a head-to-head G5 championship matchup for a shot at the playoff instead of getting knocked out from the get go by the committee.

I’ve always said that university presidents and conference commissioners worry much more about protecting themselves in the worst case scenario than they do about shooting the moon in the best case scenario. So, I would think that a G5 championship would ultimately be looked upon favorably by the AAC (as more chances to reduce risk in down years are more valuable than maximizing returns in great years).

There is one thing more important than protecting the downside:
Protecting your BS narrative.
Just like BYU isn't going to join a G5 conference, the AAC isn't going to do anything that highlights their G5 status.
01-10-2021 11:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,563
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 627
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #73
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-10-2021 11:25 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(01-10-2021 11:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 10:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 07:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, if history is a guide, Notre Dame would not claim jump that much because they often make the top 8 (3 times in 7 years).

The biggest "de facto" situation would be Frank's "KISS" version of 5/1/2, where the "1" would be a de facto AAC bid probably 80% of the time. It would not give much access at all to other G5.

That’s how it’s shaking out right now, although I think that the onus is on the other G5 conferences there to avoid that AAC strength continuing going forward.

Personally, I’d actually be all for the top 2 G5 champs facing off against each other for a playoff spot every year (essentially creating a “G5 Championship Game”).

Yes, a G5 title game would undermine the AAC - bias that a ranking committee is likely to have, as seen in this year's relative ranking of Cincy vs Coastal. That would be a good idea if we must have a 5/1/2.

Otherwise, there's really no reason for the other G5 to go along with what would likely be a de facto bid for the AAC, further allowing them to progress their "P6" campaign.

It would be interesting to see if the AAC would support that G5 championship game. On the one hand, all things being equal, the AAC champ is in the driver’s seat for the top G5 champ slot already. On the other hand, in those years where Boise State gets its act together or some random G5 team runs the table out of nowhere (like Western Michigan a few years ago), the AAC has some downside protection in still being able to get a head-to-head G5 championship matchup for a shot at the playoff instead of getting knocked out from the get go by the committee.

I’ve always said that university presidents and conference commissioners worry much more about protecting themselves in the worst case scenario than they do about shooting the moon in the best case scenario. So, I would think that a G5 championship would ultimately be looked upon favorably by the AAC (as more chances to reduce risk in down years are more valuable than maximizing returns in great years).

There is one thing more important than protecting the downside:
Protecting your BS narrative.
Just like BYU isn't going to join a G5 conference, the AAC isn't going to do anything that highlights their G5 status.

I think that’s a fair point. That being said, the AAC is only going to get access via a G5 slot, anyway, whether it’s through a committee or the G5 championship game that I’ve proposed. I think that G5 championship game would be quite valuable for the TV networks (within range a P5 championship game) to the point where the money may still talk there. That’s something that the AAC could never get as a conference on its own.

BYU can afford to do things on principle because they have a unique mission as a school that goes far beyond football. The P5 conferences also have financial buffers that allow them to take stands that may not necessarily be best for revenue. In contrast, the AAC schools can’t really pass up revenue no matter how much they want to push the P6 narrative. IMHO, Cincinnati has long been “next on the list” for a P5 invite, yet even they had to cut men’s soccer earlier this year. Every school getting a good-sized G5 championship game check every year no matter how good their team and/or conference might be is always such a big consideration (especially with how much the pandemic has ravaged so many colleges financially).
01-10-2021 11:59 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 593
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 51
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #74
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
When would you play a G5 championship? Are you adding a round and potentially a 17th game?

I think the existing 5 G5 CCGs make more money than a single game would, even if their winners are judged by rankings instead of on the field. This year the AAC and Sun Belt Championships (would have) both generated interest for the G5 spot. Most years there is an AAC team ahead of the rest, but if they are upset usually there are 2 more G5 CCGs that could produce the G5 rep.

Now, if you reconfigured the existing G5 CCGs such that Cincinnati played Coastal for a playoff spot instead of their CCGs, that'd be something to see. I still think the AACCG on its own is worth more.
01-11-2021 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,993
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 520
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #75
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
Thats what I was thinking

Are the G5s being asked to play an extra game or sacrifice their own CCG
01-11-2021 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,976
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 524
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #76
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-09-2021 09:08 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 07:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’d disagree with looping in the independents with the G5 slots because it then it becomes a de facto Notre Dame bid in many years (and I’m someone that generally thinks that a lot of fans complain about ND’s supposed advantages too much). In my mind, ND (and by extension, every other independent) should be treated the same as any P5 non-champ as an at-large - they shouldn’t be given an advantage over them and they also shouldn’t be disadvantaged against them, either.

That's not a de facto Notre Dame bid, even if they are always the top ranked indy. They still need to be highly ranked period. Only once #15 in 2019) would they have gotten a bid when they were ranked outside the top 8.

Yes, if history is a guide, Notre Dame would not claim jump that much because they often make the top 8 (3 times in 7 years).

The biggest "de facto" situation would be Frank's "KISS" version of 5/1/2, where the "1" would be a de facto AAC bid probably 80% of the time. It would not give much access at all to other G5.

That’s how it’s shaking out right now, although I think that the onus is on the other G5 conferences there to avoid that AAC strength continuing going forward.

Personally, I’d actually be all for the top 2 G5 champs facing off against each other for a playoff spot every year (essentially creating a “G5 Championship Game”). The G5 leagues can then split the revenue from that game in the same manner that the P5 leagues get outsized revenue from their own conference championship games that would become straight up playoff games in an auto-bid system. (Logistically, I think that this would require the G5 leagues to determine their champs by Thanksgiving weekend and then the G5 Championship Game would be played on championship weekend.)

This continues with my theme that the playoff *race* itself is really what’s key even more than who actually makes the playoff itself. That setup would make any G5 school that’s still in its conference championship race at least have a hope for a playoff race, which I think would have a huge downstream impact on increasing the number of meaningful regular season games for many more teams.


Coaches would hate it

Tv would love it

Sun Belt/MAC/CUSA teams would probably like it kore

Would TV really, though?

Since the AAC started its conference championship game, average viewers for CCGs:
PAC12 4.279 million viewers (the lowest average among contract-bowl-conferences)
AAC 2.661 million
MAC 810k
mwc 783k
SBC 616k ('17 to '19 with no CCG before that and '20 CCG cancelled)
CUSA 556k ('15 to '17, televised on non-Nielsen-rated CBSSN since)

Your initial step is to move the non-contract-bowl conferences to Thanksgiving weekend. Do you even have timeslots for them with rivalry games going on? In 2019, the only rated non-contract-bowl-conference games Thanksgiving weekend were:
Cincinnati-Memphis Black Friday ABC 2.51 million viewers
USF-UCF Black Friday ESPN primetime 1.76 million viewers
Navy Houston Saturday ESPN2 primetime 411k
Fresno St-SJSU Saturday late ESPN2 231k
Weekday MACtion got 238k
2 AAC, a MAC, and a SunBelt game listed as n.a. Friday/Saturday.
So I guess you can squeeze them in.

Would they compete for viewers against all those rivalry games? Without being on a stand alone weekend this year, Army-Navy dropped from the 8 million average over four prior years to under 5 million viewers. That was against good-not-great competition.
Say the CCGs don't drop on Thanksgiving/rivalry weekend...say you crowbar them into the lineup and they get the same viewers a week earlier...looks like a wash from what the non-contract-bowl conference games already deliver to TV that weekend.

So then you need the champ vs champ play-in game to do better on CCG weekend. Not just better than the AAC lapping the G4 field - for TV to love the idea, it would have to do better than all five combined. That's five million viewers, or better than a couple of the contract-bowl-conference CCGs each year.

Should it do better as a play-in game to the eight-team playoff? Maybe...but those AAC numbers are what they are because basically each year has had NY6 implications (even 2016 - the CFP Committee four days earlier said 2-loss Navy had a chance to overtake undefeated WMU). This season, Cincinnati was still in the CFP conversation (long, long shot, even longer by kickoff when other results were in) and it was the lowest of all six AAC CCGs. mwc was on OTA Fox and still only got 1.42 million viewers. Play-in game better? Okay. Five million viewers?

There's no track record for non-contract-bowl champs getting home run viewers matched up in bowls. Ball State-SJSU was on OTA CBS in a decent 31 December timeslot and only got 1.77 million viewers. Great timeslot and not much better than 2018 UAB-NIU 1.346 million viewers.

So I don't see it from the TV networks' perspective.

And I don't see it from the AAC's perspective. The CCG plus the viewers we've delivered on Thanksgiving weekend is a big chunk of the value we offer from our side of the media rights deal - this setup would halve that chunk in exchange for a champ vs champ game that isn't ours to sell, may not offer better exposure, and is a risk to lose.
01-11-2021 09:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 25,367
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 2660
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #77
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-09-2021 06:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 11:27 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Neat idea about Indies being a G6. Requiring them to schedule all other indies may be too onerous, especially because the roster of Independent teams can be rather fluid and schedules are made so far in advance. Maybe a 3 or 4 game requirement, with those unable or unwilling to schedule that many simply being eligible for the at large spot. Such a change may induce Texas independence. I still think the top G5 will get a NY6 (or equivalent) spot.

I’d disagree with looping in the independents with the G5 slots because it then it becomes a de facto Notre Dame bid in many years (and I’m someone that generally thinks that a lot of fans complain about ND’s supposed advantages too much). In my mind, ND (and by extension, every other independent) should be treated the same as any P5 non-champ as an at-large - they shouldn’t be given an advantage over them and they also shouldn’t be disadvantaged against them, either.

That's not a de facto Notre Dame bid, even if they are always the top ranked indy. They still need to be highly ranked period. Only once #15 in 2019) would they have gotten a bid when they were ranked outside the top 8.

I'm also thinking that my model could also have an interesting unintended consequence. It could possibly take a school that was considering going independent and carry them over the finish line. As an example, might that prompt Texas to strike a Notre Dame/ACC type of deal with the Big 12 in which they agree to play Oklahoma every year and four other B12 opponents every year in exchange for having a home for their other sports. That could keep the B12 from breaking up by virtue of having UT and OU leaving at the same time.

Now imagine that quasi-conference which includes the Irish, the Horns and BYU, all of which play each other every year. If the people paying the bills, like ESPN and Fox, are motivated by the prospect of late season games involving ND and UT that have playoff implications, this isn't a bad deal.

This is an 8 team playoff with no autobids that still rewards teams for winning conference championships. It just doesn't reward P5 teams who win their conference only because their conference was weak.

There's absolutely nothing preventing that from happening right now and how often have those three teams played each other in the recent past and how many games are upcoming in the future? Must not be much o a motivation for the people paying the bills for these type games.
01-11-2021 10:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,650
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 574
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #78
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-11-2021 10:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 11:27 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Neat idea about Indies being a G6. Requiring them to schedule all other indies may be too onerous, especially because the roster of Independent teams can be rather fluid and schedules are made so far in advance. Maybe a 3 or 4 game requirement, with those unable or unwilling to schedule that many simply being eligible for the at large spot. Such a change may induce Texas independence. I still think the top G5 will get a NY6 (or equivalent) spot.

I’d disagree with looping in the independents with the G5 slots because it then it becomes a de facto Notre Dame bid in many years (and I’m someone that generally thinks that a lot of fans complain about ND’s supposed advantages too much). In my mind, ND (and by extension, every other independent) should be treated the same as any P5 non-champ as an at-large - they shouldn’t be given an advantage over them and they also shouldn’t be disadvantaged against them, either.

That's not a de facto Notre Dame bid, even if they are always the top ranked indy. They still need to be highly ranked period. Only once #15 in 2019) would they have gotten a bid when they were ranked outside the top 8.

I'm also thinking that my model could also have an interesting unintended consequence. It could possibly take a school that was considering going independent and carry them over the finish line. As an example, might that prompt Texas to strike a Notre Dame/ACC type of deal with the Big 12 in which they agree to play Oklahoma every year and four other B12 opponents every year in exchange for having a home for their other sports. That could keep the B12 from breaking up by virtue of having UT and OU leaving at the same time.

Now imagine that quasi-conference which includes the Irish, the Horns and BYU, all of which play each other every year. If the people paying the bills, like ESPN and Fox, are motivated by the prospect of late season games involving ND and UT that have playoff implications, this isn't a bad deal.

This is an 8 team playoff with no autobids that still rewards teams for winning conference championships. It just doesn't reward P5 teams who win their conference only because their conference was weak.

There's absolutely nothing preventing that from happening right now and how often have those three teams played each other in the recent past and how many games are upcoming in the future? Must not be much o a motivation for the people paying the bills for these type games.

Except for the fact that, unlike, Notre Dame, Texas would not be part of the current CFP contract if they went independent. They would have to give up access to the NY6 and any compensation from that contract unless they were selected as one of the four playoff teams.
01-12-2021 09:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 4,569
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 140
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #79
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
(01-11-2021 09:41 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 09:08 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 07:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2021 06:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  That's not a de facto Notre Dame bid, even if they are always the top ranked indy. They still need to be highly ranked period. Only once #15 in 2019) would they have gotten a bid when they were ranked outside the top 8.

Yes, if history is a guide, Notre Dame would not claim jump that much because they often make the top 8 (3 times in 7 years).

The biggest "de facto" situation would be Frank's "KISS" version of 5/1/2, where the "1" would be a de facto AAC bid probably 80% of the time. It would not give much access at all to other G5.

That’s how it’s shaking out right now, although I think that the onus is on the other G5 conferences there to avoid that AAC strength continuing going forward.

Personally, I’d actually be all for the top 2 G5 champs facing off against each other for a playoff spot every year (essentially creating a “G5 Championship Game”). The G5 leagues can then split the revenue from that game in the same manner that the P5 leagues get outsized revenue from their own conference championship games that would become straight up playoff games in an auto-bid system. (Logistically, I think that this would require the G5 leagues to determine their champs by Thanksgiving weekend and then the G5 Championship Game would be played on championship weekend.)

This continues with my theme that the playoff *race* itself is really what’s key even more than who actually makes the playoff itself. That setup would make any G5 school that’s still in its conference championship race at least have a hope for a playoff race, which I think would have a huge downstream impact on increasing the number of meaningful regular season games for many more teams.


Coaches would hate it

Tv would love it

Sun Belt/MAC/CUSA teams would probably like it kore

Would TV really, though?

Since the AAC started its conference championship game, average viewers for CCGs:
PAC12 4.279 million viewers (the lowest average among contract-bowl-conferences)
AAC 2.661 million
MAC 810k
mwc 783k
SBC 616k ('17 to '19 with no CCG before that and '20 CCG cancelled)
CUSA 556k ('15 to '17, televised on non-Nielsen-rated CBSSN since)

Your initial step is to move the non-contract-bowl conferences to Thanksgiving weekend. Do you even have timeslots for them with rivalry games going on? In 2019, the only rated non-contract-bowl-conference games Thanksgiving weekend were:
Cincinnati-Memphis Black Friday ABC 2.51 million viewers
USF-UCF Black Friday ESPN primetime 1.76 million viewers
Navy Houston Saturday ESPN2 primetime 411k
Fresno St-SJSU Saturday late ESPN2 231k
Weekday MACtion got 238k
2 AAC, a MAC, and a SunBelt game listed as n.a. Friday/Saturday.
So I guess you can squeeze them in.

Would they compete for viewers against all those rivalry games? Without being on a stand alone weekend this year, Army-Navy dropped from the 8 million average over four prior years to under 5 million viewers. That was against good-not-great competition.
Say the CCGs don't drop on Thanksgiving/rivalry weekend...say you crowbar them into the lineup and they get the same viewers a week earlier...looks like a wash from what the non-contract-bowl conference games already deliver to TV that weekend.

So then you need the champ vs champ play-in game to do better on CCG weekend. Not just better than the AAC lapping the G4 field - for TV to love the idea, it would have to do better than all five combined. That's five million viewers, or better than a couple of the contract-bowl-conference CCGs each year.

Should it do better as a play-in game to the eight-team playoff? Maybe...but those AAC numbers are what they are because basically each year has had NY6 implications (even 2016 - the CFP Committee four days earlier said 2-loss Navy had a chance to overtake undefeated WMU). This season, Cincinnati was still in the CFP conversation (long, long shot, even longer by kickoff when other results were in) and it was the lowest of all six AAC CCGs. mwc was on OTA Fox and still only got 1.42 million viewers. Play-in game better? Okay. Five million viewers?

There's no track record for non-contract-bowl champs getting home run viewers matched up in bowls. Ball State-SJSU was on OTA CBS in a decent 31 December timeslot and only got 1.77 million viewers. Great timeslot and not much better than 2018 UAB-NIU 1.346 million viewers.

So I don't see it from the TV networks' perspective.

And I don't see it from the AAC's perspective. The CCG plus the viewers we've delivered on Thanksgiving weekend is a big chunk of the value we offer from our side of the media rights deal - this setup would halve that chunk in exchange for a champ vs champ game that isn't ours to sell, may not offer better exposure, and is a risk to lose.

You add stakes to a lot of regular season games, you raise the stakes for title games, and you add an annual david vs goliath matchup like the opening weekend of march madness. It all adds up to more inventory with title implications that keeps more eyes on the sport.
01-12-2021 09:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 593
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 51
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #80
RE: [split] BYU/CFP/playoff split discussion
Unless 4 or all 5 G5 champs are playing for a playoff spot, the top 1 (or 2, if they were to do this #1 vs. #2 game) would largely be dependent on rank. UAB's final games were determinative for the CUSA title... but would not have helped them crack #2 of the G5. Same with the MAC and MWC this year... by the end of the year you still end up with only a small handful of G5 contenders. The regular season will not be enhanced.

And, again, making the AAC Championship a virtual "Round of 32" game is not going to happen. The American would opt out, take its chances for an at large bid and dare the CFP powers to put the winner of Ball State vs. San Jose State against Alabama.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2021 11:41 AM by Crayton.)
01-12-2021 11:20 AM
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.