(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.