Yep in a 12 team playoff you can bet the P5 will do everything they can to keep G5 participation to 1 school. I would like to see top 7 conference champs get in then 5 at large

This is going to have to work in baby steps. The G5 is going to have to get in and win playoff games before there's a grassroots groundswell to pressure them include more G5 auto-bids.

From P5 leaders to media to advertisers- getting past the "brands" argument for the "better product" argument is going to take a "+1" team going on the equivalent of a VCU final four run. It sucks this year it would be a Cincinnati team that would be viewed as a P5 now, but the views will change when a Troy or Toledo team makes it to the semi-finals, vs a Memphis or SMU.

The wild card we have is the Top 25. As long as the P5 continues to schedule G5, those victories help pump more G5s into the Top 25 and at a higher rating. It adds legitimacy to the G5 as a whole and increases the odds of an at large.

Without beating a ranked P5, the powerbrokers will always marginalize G5 performance as king of the pre-school playground. Over time, the more G5s in the Top 25, the more weight given to G5 victories over other G5s.

(11-16-2021 12:34 PM)2Buck Wrote:  This is going to have to work in baby steps. The G5 is going to have to get in and win playoff games before there's a grassroots groundswell to pressure them include more G5 auto-bids.

From P5 leaders to media to advertisers- getting past the "brands" argument for the "better product" argument is going to take a "+1" team going on the equivalent of a VCU final four run. It sucks this year it would be a Cincinnati team that would be viewed as a P5 now, but the views will change when a Troy or Toledo team makes it to the semi-finals, vs a Memphis or SMU.

The wild card we have is the Top 25. As long as the P5 continues to schedule G5, those victories help pump more G5s into the Top 25 and at a higher rating. It adds legitimacy to the G5 as a whole and increases the odds of an at large.

Without beating a ranked P5, the powerbrokers will always marginalize G5 performance as king of the pre-school playground. Over time, the more G5s in the Top 25, the more weight given to G5 victories over other G5s.

Which is why some are already talking about not scheduling us. Regarding VCU, remember, the year they went to the F4, they wouldnt have even been in the tournament if they hadnt expanded it by 4 teams. They were literally the last at-large bid that year when they added 4 more. Goes to show what can happen when teams actually have access to play

(11-15-2021 10:25 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  Yep in a 12 team playoff you can bet the P5 will do everything they can to keep G5 participation to 1 school. I would like to see top 7 conference champs get in then 5 at large

The G5 record vs the P5 has to improve then they have no leg to stand on. I think the FCS game is going away for the P5 soon. If the G5 continues to play FCS teams we will have no argument with SOS. I thought elite G5's should have eliminated the FCS game years ago to have a talking point.

(11-15-2021 04:27 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(11-15-2021 03:48 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Someone had the idea that the champions from the top 8 rated conference received an autobid and then 4 at-larges. I like that idea.

Thats not bad. At least you'd have 3 G5 representatives. I could live with that. I cant imagine 4 or more conference champs being completely undefeated, so at least if you run the table you would be in.

One flaw is an unranked G5 program would get in without further criteria.

Let's say a 8-4 App teams beats a 12-0 ULL team in the CCG and the SBC is the 6th highest ranked conference. That 8-4 team goes to the playoffs.

May have to add a qualifier that the team is also ranked in the top 25 of the CFP or a reasonable number that a 12-1 G5 Champion would be within.

(11-16-2021 03:48 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(11-15-2021 04:27 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(11-15-2021 03:48 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Someone had the idea that the champions from the top 8 rated conference received an autobid and then 4 at-larges. I like that idea.

Thats not bad. At least you'd have 3 G5 representatives. I could live with that. I cant imagine 4 or more conference champs being completely undefeated, so at least if you run the table you would be in.

One flaw is an unranked G5 program would get in without further criteria.

Let's say a 8-4 App teams beats a 12-0 ULL team in the CCG and the SBC is the 6th highest ranked conference. That 8-4 team goes to the playoffs.

May have to add a qualifier that the team is also ranked in the top 25 of the CFP or a reasonable number that a 12-1 G5 Champion would be within.

If the G5 gets only one spot....We (the G5) should get to decide on our on system to send that representative. The big flaw in the system is the conference champ part. It should be up to each conference to decide who to send. I really like lining up 1-14 of the AAC and the Sunbelt for the same week each year near the end of the season. At least 1,2 and 3 and the rest just play the closest team that they have not played yet that year. It would be doable. If App and Charlotte or ECU are not in the top 4 than they play each other. If FAU is the AAC number one and App is the Sunbelt number 1 they play each other. Alternate home sites.

(11-15-2021 09:45 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  The 5+1+6 model will probably get adopted, but it just feels.like such weak sauce by the P5. They have every advantage. The SEC and B1G will be making 25X as much media revenue as the SB. They have stadiums that pull in 70K+. They have often statewide, large fanbases. They pretty much get first, and second, and third dibs in recruiting. What are they worried about? Are they not confident they'd always be among the top five, especially with a committee that CLEARLY diminishes any G5 school's accomplishments?

That's the entire point. It's the same reason an Alabama won't play in state schools they don't have to play. A pest is simply a pest unless you let it get out of control. Most G5s won't ever become a huge problem...but allowing them into the playoffs is asking for "an upset for the ages" situation at some point. After that, money and recruits start showing interest which is everything the big boys don't want. Boise is Boise for that exact reason (beating Oklahoma at the end of the year). Not to compare this to the App/Michigan, since Michigan ultimately laid an egg that year, but had App already been FBS, they might have had an even larger platform than they ended up with.

A 10+6 model might end conference expansion and realignment and that could be good for FBS. If every conference is guaranteed a spot why move unless it is for way more money.

It makes sense...assume 2 more at large for SEC and BIG..the other two split across ACC, PAC, B12, G5

(11-15-2021 09:45 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  The 5+1+6 model will probably get adopted, but it just feels.like such weak sauce by the P5. They have every advantage. The SEC and B1G will be making 25X as much media revenue as the SB. They have stadiums that pull in 70K+. They have often statewide, large fanbases. They pretty much get first, and second, and third dibs in recruiting. What are they worried about? Are they not confident they'd always be among the top five, especially with a committee that CLEARLY diminishes any G5 school's accomplishments?

Because they are terrified of parity developing in CFB to the detriment of FBS football student athletes.

^ is this about extra games and time away from studying?

(11-17-2021 07:25 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  ^ is this about extra games and time away from studying?

Nah, just saying P5 would rather essentially lock out half of the FBS student athletes from competing for a national championships in order to guarantee one of their teams win it every year.

Literally the only intercollegiate sport this happens with. Meanwhile, NCAA tournaments for men & women basketball/baseball are still glorious and accessible.

(11-16-2021 03:48 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(11-15-2021 04:27 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(11-15-2021 03:48 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Someone had the idea that the champions from the top 8 rated conference received an autobid and then 4 at-larges. I like that idea.

Thats not bad. At least you'd have 3 G5 representatives. I could live with that. I cant imagine 4 or more conference champs being completely undefeated, so at least if you run the table you would be in.

One flaw is an unranked G5 program would get in without further criteria.

Let's say a 8-4 App teams beats a 12-0 ULL team in the CCG and the SBC is the 6th highest ranked conference. That 8-4 team goes to the playoffs.

May have to add a qualifier that the team is also ranked in the top 25 of the CFP or a reasonable number that a 12-1 G5 Champion would be within.

It won't quite work like that though. It's 6th highest ranked team among conference winners, not the winner of the 6th highest ranked conferences. Just like in the current CFP there are no conference rankings used by the committee. The G5 spot currently goes to the highest ranked G5 team that won it's conference, not the winner of the highest ranked G5 conference.

So an 8-4 App beating a 12-0 Louisiana only eliminates the Sunbelt and that's all. There's likely to be one of the other G5 champs with a better record than 8-4 and as a result a higher ranking than App.

Even though I love my 11-team model I put together, the one thing I like about the conf champs both P5 and highest G5, is that the conf champ game actually settles it on the field. The way it should be. Winning the actual game actually means something. No more committee saying well, we know Mich State beat you a couple of weeks ago, but based on the strength of what we think is a better schedule, and game control and the eye test, we think Michigan deserves the spot more.

Do a 5+1+6
Or a 5+2+5

Whichever. I don’t see it going past 12.
Con champ games will be the play-in.
I think that needs to come with deregulation however. The conf puts the two best teams in the title game based on record etc.
But the two that make it have to earn their spot.