(06-11-2021 04:49 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  It appears that many on here are happy with being thrown a bone finally. Seems most G5 fans are content with their lot and eating any scraps thrown to us.

Viewing an upgrade as an upgrade is not identical with being content with our lot.

And by the same token, pretending that an upgrade is NOT an upgrade because it is not perfect would be foolish. You can't let the perfect be the enemy of progress.

(06-11-2021 05:15 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  I would rather have a system like every other college sport. One that gives every conference champion a spot.

It's fine to spout statements like this until you actually look into the details.

Let's just look at FCS. There are 13 conferences. Do you know how many of them actually send their champions to the FCS playoffs? Here's a hint, it's less than 13.

USFFan

(06-11-2021 09:36 PM)JamesTKirk Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 07:00 PM)micahandme Wrote:  If you're looking for the "next" way that G5 teams can be screwed with seeding, check out the 2020 and 2018 home games for the 8 seed G5 teams. The committee with its heavy P5 leans will be hard-pressed to give Cincy the higher seed over Georgia (2020) and UCF the home seed over Washington (2018). That's millions of dollars out of the p5 coffers. A simple switch of those two seeds--which is all subjective anyway--and the G5 will lose their advantage quite easily.

There would be the possibility of litigation if they do that, because, with very few exceptions, they have already been systematically under-ranking the non-P5 teams by 1-5 ranking points, compared with the AP polls:

For example:..........AP poll (Dec.).....CFP (final)....underestimate: (%underestimate):

2020 Cincinnati..............#6.................#8..................-2..................33.3%
2020 Coastal Car............#9................#12.................-3..................33.3%
2020 BYU.......................#13..............#16.................-3..................23.1%
2020 San Jose St.............#19..............#22.................-3..................15.8%
2020 Tulsa......................#22..............#24.................-2....................9.1%
2020 Liberty...................#23............unranked............-2.....................8.7%%
2020 Louisiana...............#16...............#19.................-3...................18.8%
2019 Memphis................#15...............#17.................-2..................13.3%
2019 Boise St.................#18................#19................-1...................5.6%
2019 Appalachian St........#20................#20.................0..................0%
2019 Navy.....................#21................#23.................-2..................9.5%
2018 UCF......................#7..................#8...................-1..................12.5%
2018 Fresno St..............#19................#21..................-2...................10.5%
2018 Boise St................#23................#25..................-2...................8.7%
2017 UCF.......................#10................#12.................-2..................20.0%
2017 Memphis.................#19................#20................-1....................5.3%
2017 USF........................#23.............unranked............-2....................8.7%
2017 Boise......................#25................#25.................0....................0%
2016 WMU.......................#12................#17................-5..................41.7%
2016 Temple....................#23................#24................-1...................4.3%
2016 USF.........................#25.............unranked...........-1...................4.0%

Average under-ranking............................................-1.82 ranks lower

That is a consistent pattern of systematic and ongoing under-ranking
over an extended period that should at least raise a question in a judge's
mind that the CFP may have been systematically under-ranking the
non-P5 teams.

There is a similar pattern of under-ranking in comparison with
the Coaches' Poll, as well.

That is potent background information. They'll have to be mindful about
their ranking practices, going forward.

I’m shocked I’m saying this but Jed’s burner account is right here. This committee has demonstrated a clear bias against the G5. In the BCS era, you could end up in top 6 as a non-BCS undefeated champ. Not anymore.

I could definitely see the Rose Bowl opting out of the semi’s rotation. Maybe the Sugar and the Orange too. I don’t see the Cotton being content with being a permanent semi-final, and if given the choice, I’d make the Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton the permanent NYD bowls. The other two are much younger bowls.

One thing that I think is going to be fascinating about this is the money part. As others have noted, individual teams will benefit from getting one of the byes, but the schools that get those first round home games stand to get a financial windfall. How do the schools (and conferences) benefit from this? Do they just pay a significant premium for playing in those bowl games? Do they do some kind of NCAA credits type thing and pay out the money based on some initial level plus a set amount per conference appearance?

Whatever it is, expect it to most financially benefit the A5 conferences.

USFFan

I want to know what happens to all the revenue for the first round games at home sites.

So if this system comes to fruition, will the terms P5 and G5 go away? Or are they already ingrained in our minds like “BCS conference”?

(06-12-2021 08:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I want to know what happens to all the revenue for the first round games at home sites.

It really is a big unknown. If you've ever gone to an NCAA tournament game on campus, you've probably noticed that much of the branding is changed to NCAA branding. For example, you buy a souvenir cup at a football or basketball game and it has the home team's logo. You buy one at an NCAA tournament game and it's NCAA tournament branded. My bet is that things like parking and concessions go to the NCAA. No idea how they deal with things like luxury boxes. I do know for things like the Super Bowl, even owning a box doesn't get you in to the Super Bowl - the NFL controls all of those. My bet is the NCAA does this as well, but offers the current holders the right of first refusal.

USFFan

(06-12-2021 07:51 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 05:15 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  I would rather have a system like every other college sport. One that gives every conference champion a spot.

It's fine to spout statements like this until you actually look into the details.

Let's just look at FCS. There are 13 conferences. Do you know how many of them actually send their champions to the FCS playoffs? Here's a hint, it's less than 13.

USFFan

10. The other 3 choose not to participate (Ivy, SWAC, and MEAC)..

Even the non scholarship Pioneer League gets an auto bid, so any league that wants to participate gets an auto bid.

(06-12-2021 08:36 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 08:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I want to know what happens to all the revenue for the first round games at home sites.

It really is a big unknown. If you've ever gone to an NCAA tournament game on campus, you've probably noticed that much of the branding is changed to NCAA branding. For example, you buy a souvenir cup at a football or basketball game and it has the home team's logo. You buy one at an NCAA tournament game and it's NCAA tournament branded. My bet is that things like parking and concessions go to the NCAA. No idea how they deal with things like luxury boxes. I do know for things like the Super Bowl, even owning a box doesn't get you in to the Super Bowl - the NFL controls all of those. My bet is the NCAA does this as well, but offers the current holders the right of first refusal.

USFFan

The revenue for the home team is probably going to be much (maybe MUCH) less than what people think. In the NFL, all playoff ticket revenue goes to the league. The home team keeps stadium specific revenue besides tickets (such as parking and concessions), so that actually is the opposite of what you’re thinking. It’s similar for the other pro sports leagues - ticket revenue is split much more with their respective leagues, but home teams keep concessions, parking and other stadium specific revenue. That all makes sense to me - all leagues (and in this case, the CFP) want to have a lot of control of their postseason ticket sales even if it’s not at a neutral site. In contrast, concessions and parking are all under the control of the home team, so they keep all of it. Think of it like a movie theater model when it comes to the playoffs - they really make money off of the concessions as opposed to the movie tickets themselves.

So, a home playoff game might be a nice bonus in terms of concession/parking revenue, but it would probably still only make a fraction of the revenue for the home team compared to a random guarantee game against a MAC opponent in September. The real money from the CFP is from the overall system.

(06-12-2021 08:36 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 08:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I want to know what happens to all the revenue for the first round games at home sites.

It really is a big unknown. If you've ever gone to an NCAA tournament game on campus, you've probably noticed that much of the branding is changed to NCAA branding. For example, you buy a souvenir cup at a football or basketball game and it has the home team's logo. You buy one at an NCAA tournament game and it's NCAA tournament branded. My bet is that things like parking and concessions go to the NCAA. No idea how they deal with things like luxury boxes. I do know for things like the Super Bowl, even owning a box doesn't get you in to the Super Bowl - the NFL controls all of those. My bet is the NCAA does this as well, but offers the current holders the right of first refusal.

USFFan

What I have read (and I don't have a link, and I don't remember if it's part of the actual proposal, but it makes sense) regarding these home site games: Seeds 5-8 would host home games in the first week. Concessions and parking would go to the host team to cover gameday expenses. Ticket revenue would go into the CFP revenue pool to be split among the participating schools.

With this model, a host school wouldn't pick up a significant financial windfall that other schools wouldn't get. What they would get would be a home field advantage for their team. (A game up north in the snow...yes!) A host city would also get the associated financial benefit that comes with a football weekend.

(06-12-2021 08:36 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 08:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I want to know what happens to all the revenue for the first round games at home sites.

It really is a big unknown. If you've ever gone to an NCAA tournament game on campus, you've probably noticed that much of the branding is changed to NCAA branding. For example, you buy a souvenir cup at a football or basketball game and it has the home team's logo. You buy one at an NCAA tournament game and it's NCAA tournament branded. My bet is that things like parking and concessions go to the NCAA. No idea how they deal with things like luxury boxes. I do know for things like the Super Bowl, even owning a box doesn't get you in to the Super Bowl - the NFL controls all of those. My bet is the NCAA does this as well, but offers the current holders the right of first refusal.

USFFan

Nooooo. The whole point of the CFP (and the old BCS) was to keep the NCAA's grubby mitts off of the money.
They'll pay off the G5 so that they have record-padding patsies, but that's the limit.

The whole point if on campus home games is game day revenue fir Notre Dame and Big Ten and SEC schools with 100,000 seat stadiums

(06-12-2021 09:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  ...
Nooooo. The whole point of the CFP (and the old BCS) was to keep the NCAA's grubby mitts off of the money.
They'll pay off the G5 so that they have record-padding patsies, but that's the limit.

The whole point if on campus home games is game day revenue fir Notre Dame and Big Ten and SEC schools with 100,000 seat stadiums

Of course it's not direct to the host, it's to the CFP pool, but it DEFINITELY is not going to the NCAA.

There'll be some division of a part of the underlying media rights to go to the individual power conferences for committing to send their champion if selected, likely the present group of five gets a single share to divide among themselves, and then likely a pool for the balance of the surplus which gets divvied up by conferences based on games played prior to the Championship game. It would not be surprising if ticket sales go into that pool, possibly after a cut is taken for something.

(06-12-2021 09:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 08:36 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 08:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I want to know what happens to all the revenue for the first round games at home sites.

It really is a big unknown. If you've ever gone to an NCAA tournament game on campus, you've probably noticed that much of the branding is changed to NCAA branding. For example, you buy a souvenir cup at a football or basketball game and it has the home team's logo. You buy one at an NCAA tournament game and it's NCAA tournament branded. My bet is that things like parking and concessions go to the NCAA. No idea how they deal with things like luxury boxes. I do know for things like the Super Bowl, even owning a box doesn't get you in to the Super Bowl - the NFL controls all of those. My bet is the NCAA does this as well, but offers the current holders the right of first refusal.

USFFan

The revenue for the home team is probably going to be much (maybe MUCH) less than what people think. In the NFL, all playoff ticket revenue goes to the league. The home team keeps stadium specific revenue besides tickets (such as parking and concessions), so that actually is the opposite of what you’re thinking. It’s similar for the other pro sports leagues - ticket revenue is split much more with their respective leagues, but home teams keep concessions, parking and other stadium specific revenue. That all makes sense to me - all leagues (and in this case, the CFP) want to have a lot of control of their postseason ticket sales even if it’s not at a neutral site. In contrast, concessions and parking are all under the control of the home team, so they keep all of it. Think of it like a movie theater model when it comes to the playoffs - they really make money off of the concessions as opposed to the movie tickets themselves.

So, a home playoff game might be a nice bonus in terms of concession/parking revenue, but it would probably still only make a fraction of the revenue for the home team compared to a random guarantee game against a MAC opponent in September. The real money from the CFP is from the overall system.

Not the schools themselves, but the local hotels, bars and restaurants will make bank from a home playoff game.

It also is great for the home team fans.

But, I agree with you that the schools will keep concessions, parking, and only a share of the ticket revenues.

(06-12-2021 07:51 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 05:15 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  I would rather have a system like every other college sport. One that gives every conference champion a spot.

It's fine to spout statements like this until you actually look into the details.

Let's just look at FCS. There are 13 conferences. Do you know how many of them actually send their champions to the FCS playoffs? Here's a hint, it's less than 13.

USFFan

FCS playoffs are great! Yet ND State has won 8 of 10 last championship games.

No parity there either.

(06-11-2021 05:15 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 04:57 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 04:49 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 04:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 04:05 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  I have to laugh at your pie-in-the-sky "G5 has the same opportunity to fill those six slots". When has a G5 ever been ranked in the top 6 of the playoff rankings? Never. You have biased people ranking these teams. So no, it's not the "same opportunity". Any G5 team getting into this current proposal will be ranked 6th and no higher every time. As for the six at-large spots, those will pretty much be filled with extra SEC and Big 10 teams.

In 2018, an undefeated UCF team only made it as high as 8th in the playoff rankings.

In 2017, an undefeated UCF team only made it as high as 12th in the playoff rankings.

In 2016, an undefeated WMU team only made it as high as 15th in the playoff rankings.

I'm getting me a bracelet you don't understand how this works. You realize that in this system, all three of those teams would have been in the playoffs?

It's not "conference champion ranked in the top six".
It's "six highest rated conference champions"
So mathematically there's one G5 guaranteed in the playoffs every year. Yes they will not be ranked as highly as the P5 champions. But they'll be in the first round games..
#8 UCF would have hosted s playoff game.

I don't think you read what I wrote.

Yes, I know each of those teams would have made it.

My point is undefeated G5 teams have never been ranked higher than 8th, so if anyone thinks a G5 team will ever be ranked in the top 4 because the system allows everyone the "same opportunity" then you are being naive.

It appears that many on here are happy with being thrown a bone finally. Seems most G5 fans are content with their lot and eating any scraps thrown to us.

Would you rather stick with the current system??

I would rather have a system like every other college sport. One that gives every conference champion a spot.

FBS football is the only sport where such a huge divide has been created to keep certain teams and conferences with all the power, money, and access.

Totally true and i agree with you, college football is a joke and so are the spineless people on here saying to just deal with it, all 10 FBS conference champions should go to play for a championship if not then the G5 conferences will continue to live in a anarcho-syndicalist commune seeking some sort of executive office for the week and spineless
the A5 gets all five of their conference chumps in their playoffs and low and behold the G5 , we get one !, is a slap in the face, it’s also possible that allowing a g5er into their garbage playoffs this has the potential to open the door for a seventh champion and then all 10 conference champions and then the abolishment of the committee
and finally someone please get a new cfp trophy, the current one looks like trash

(06-11-2021 06:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 04:49 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 04:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 04:05 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 03:28 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  The new playoff system would invite the top six FBS conference champions. A G5 conference school has the same opportunity as a power conference school to fill those six slots. No one is given anything. You have to earn it. Obviously, at least one slot will go to a G5 conference school and there are the six at-large berths available. It seems that you are insecure about the G5 conferences being able to compete with the power conferences and want a playoff system that will give the G5 conference champions participation slots.

I have to laugh at your pie-in-the-sky "G5 has the same opportunity to fill those six slots". When has a G5 ever been ranked in the top 6 of the playoff rankings? Never. You have biased people ranking these teams. So no, it's not the "same opportunity". Any G5 team getting into this current proposal will be ranked 6th and no higher every time. As for the six at-large spots, those will pretty much be filled with extra SEC and Big 10 teams.

In 2018, an undefeated UCF team only made it as high as 8th in the playoff rankings.

In 2017, an undefeated UCF team only made it as high as 12th in the playoff rankings.

In 2016, an undefeated WMU team only made it as high as 15th in the playoff rankings.

I'm getting me a bracelet you don't understand how this works. You realize that in this system, all three of those teams would have been in the playoffs?

It's not "conference champion ranked in the top six".
It's "six highest rated conference champions"
So mathematically there's one G5 guaranteed in the playoffs every year. Yes they will not be ranked as highly as the P5 champions. But they'll be in the first round games..
#8 UCF would have hosted s playoff game.

I don't think you read what I wrote.

Yes, I know each of those teams would have made it.

My point is undefeated G5 teams have never been ranked higher than 8th, so if anyone thinks a G5 team will ever be ranked in the top 4 because the system allows everyone the "same opportunity" then you are being naive.

Um, yeah. Nobody seriously suggested that a G5 team would ever be ranked in the top 4. But in this system, they don't have to be top 4. So I don't understand your complaint.

Socalbobcat said everyone would have the same opportunity in this system for the first 6 spots. So what he should have said is everyone will have the same opportunity for spots 5-12, just don't mind the top 4 seeds.

(06-11-2021 05:30 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 04:41 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Take the data points back to the BCS era and TCU picks up a few byes while Boise State hosted first round games.

UC as recently as last year would have hosted a first round game.

The door will be open wider on the rankings as talent flow improves in the G5.

I think you're right. The more talent flow into the G5, the more likely they are to have multiple teams in the CFP. Likewise, the better the seeds they will receive once in the playoff. And, the ability to win one or more games in the playoff. Some G5 schools will be able to do more than make a token appearance.

Does Cincinnati beat Georgia last year on their home field? Probably.

The talent flow is not going to change much. The top 6 programs will still get most of the top players.

https://theathletic.com/2645903/2021/06/...g-problem/

Quote:TCU coach Gary Patterson estimated that only six programs had been invited to the College Football Playoff since its inception in 2014. The reality is that 11 different schools have reached the Playoff, but it’s hard to blame him for feeling as though it’s always the same six teams competing for a national title.

You know the six: Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, LSU and Georgia.

Quote:Here’s an amazing stat: 55 of the top 100 players in the 247Sports Composite of the Class of 2021 went to one of the aforementioned six schools.

Quote:Money talks. And the voice is loud.

“There is only one sales pitch a prospect really wants to hear,” a MAC recruiting coordinator said. “It’s about how you can turn them into a pro.”

Quote:In the end, though, it likely will still be the same six teams battling it out at the end because winning is about having the best players.

(06-12-2021 10:51 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 05:15 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 04:57 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 04:49 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 04:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm getting me a bracelet you don't understand how this works. You realize that in this system, all three of those teams would have been in the playoffs?

It's not "conference champion ranked in the top six".
It's "six highest rated conference champions"
So mathematically there's one G5 guaranteed in the playoffs every year. Yes they will not be ranked as highly as the P5 champions. But they'll be in the first round games..
#8 UCF would have hosted s playoff game.

I don't think you read what I wrote.

Yes, I know each of those teams would have made it.

My point is undefeated G5 teams have never been ranked higher than 8th, so if anyone thinks a G5 team will ever be ranked in the top 4 because the system allows everyone the "same opportunity" then you are being naive.

It appears that many on here are happy with being thrown a bone finally. Seems most G5 fans are content with their lot and eating any scraps thrown to us.

Would you rather stick with the current system??

I would rather have a system like every other college sport. One that gives every conference champion a spot.

FBS football is the only sport where such a huge divide has been created to keep certain teams and conferences with all the power, money, and access.

Totally true and i agree with you, college football is a joke and so are the spineless people on here saying to just deal with it, all 10 FBS conference champions should go to play for a championship if not then the G5 conferences will continue to live in a anarcho-syndicalist commune seeking some sort of executive office for the week and spineless
the A5 gets all five of their conference chumps in their playoffs and low and behold the G5 , we get one !, is a slap in the face, it’s also possible that allowing a g5er into their garbage playoffs this has the potential to open the door for a seventh champion and then all 10 conference champions and then the abolishment of the committee
and finally someone please get a new cfp trophy, the current one looks like trash

I would actually be very pleased to see a 16-team playoff with the winners of each of the 10 D-I FBS conference automatically qualifying.

But the proposed model is a strong step in the right direction for the G5.

I find it interesting that I'm arguing with a bunch of G5 fans who don't want more G5 teams to have access. That we shouldn't be allowed to have every conference champion to have a spot in the 12 team playoff. The ESPN talking heads and all the P5 schools/conferences have done such an excellent job controlling the system in their favor that the G5 fans really think they don't deserve access and should play for whatever the big schools allow us to have.