(04-13-2014 09:09 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  I will never fully understand why the B12 didn't take Louisville and Cincinnati along with WVU to create a VERY nice eastern segment to the conference. But that's water under the bridge, as they say. Having said that, BYU has some leverage with the B12 as well in bringing in leverage and probably is trying to consider that option behind the scenes. My personal opinion is that the B12 will expand at some point and barring something crazy like a couple of ACC teams moving (which seems improbable) then BYU and Cincinnati make a good pairing to bring gains to the conference.

But I think BYU will have to do something to get into the P5 equation.

Really simple, Louisville wasn't willing to leave the BE early and West Virginia was. Simple as that. Our TV partners said we needed 10 teams to keep the contract in place and we found the 2 best candidates that could join ASAP. BYU was extremely difficult to deal and we told them, "thanks but no thanks". Cincy doesn't add any extra value.

Not hard to understand at all. Simple economics and the ability to leave when asked.

(04-12-2014 07:55 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no worries about the P5 choosing "to only play games amongst themselves in the future." If that happened they would all have to play half of their games on the road, rather than playing seven or eight at home every season. And half of the P5 schools would end up with losing seasons every year and miss out on bowl games. Their fans would riot at the very prospect. Will never happen.

This.

(04-13-2014 09:50 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 07:55 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no worries about the P5 choosing "to only play games amongst themselves in the future." If that happened they would all have to play half of their games on the road, rather than playing seven or eight at home every season. And half of the P5 schools would end up with losing seasons every year and miss out on bowl games. Their fans would riot at the very prospect. Will never happen.

This.

+2. Saban sounds like the bratty little kid that wants to take his football and go home because he can't have everything his way.

(04-12-2014 07:55 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no worries about the P5 choosing "to only play games amongst themselves in the future." If that happened they would all have to play half of their games on the road, rather than playing seven or eight at home every season. And half of the P5 schools would end up with losing seasons every year and miss out on bowl games. Their fans would riot at the very prospect. Will never happen.

This isn't the near future, for those reasons.

But it might be the long-term future, if the Kessler lawsuit or some other event leads to CFB players receiving genuine compensation and not just scholarships that don't lead to degrees for star players (and a very large percentage of other FBS football players). If there is just one component of the current rules that 90% of the G5 must have to stay in the FBS club, it is the current shamateur status of CFB players, the rules that fix their above-the-table compensation at zero dollars.

Can the fans of the Tide and Ducks and Buckeyes and Horns adjust to a world in which 10-2 is outstanding, 8-4 might squeeze into a larger playoff system, and an off year will mean 6-6 instead of 9-3? I think they could learn to live without the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, the Outback Bowl, etc. And (as noted above in this thread) the Big Boys' season-ticket holders would definitely prefer paying for six good home games to paying for 4 or 5 good games plus 2 or 3 blah matchups.

Fans of the Dallas Cowboys don't riot when their team is 8-8 every year, and for some reason they don't stop putting money in Jerry Jones' bank accounts. The change would definitely be a big adjustment for the t-shirt bandwagon fans of the traditional CFB powers, but over time it would work out.

(04-13-2014 10:25 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 07:55 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no worries about the P5 choosing "to only play games amongst themselves in the future." If that happened they would all have to play half of their games on the road, rather than playing seven or eight at home every season. And half of the P5 schools would end up with losing seasons every year and miss out on bowl games. Their fans would riot at the very prospect. Will never happen.

This isn't the near future, for those reasons.

But it might be the long-term future, if the Kessler lawsuit or some other event leads to CFB players receiving genuine compensation and not just scholarships that don't lead to degrees for star players (and a very large percentage of other FBS football players). If there is just one component of the current rules that 90% of the G5 must have to stay in the FBS club, it is the current shamateur status of CFB players, the rules that fix their above-the-table compensation at zero dollars.

Can the fans of the Tide and Ducks and Buckeyes and Horns adjust to a world in which 10-2 is outstanding, 8-4 might squeeze into a larger playoff system, and an off year will mean 6-6 instead of 9-3? I think they could learn to live without the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, the Outback Bowl, etc. And (as noted above in this thread) the Big Boys' season-ticket holders would definitely prefer paying for six good home games to paying for 4 or 5 good games plus 2 or 3 blah matchups.

Fans of the Dallas Cowboys don't riot when their team is 8-8 every year, and for some reason they don't stop putting money in Jerry Jones' bank accounts. The change would definitely be a big adjustment for the t-shirt bandwagon fans of the traditional CFB powers, but over time it would work out.

I don't think that ESPN is gonna want this either. Here's what that would do

1) Removes a lot of fans from the equation. Sure, I'll passively root for Auburn, but I'm not going to pay UVerse or Comcast 300 bucks a year simply to watch a team (which is what I probably end up paying for ESPN through my cable bill) for which I'm not the primary fan. I'll just cut the cord and go with wifi TV.

2) Removes a lot of content from the equation. It might make some games more valuable, but would reduce ESPN's ability to play content off against content. ESPN is trying to create content (sponsoring bowls etc.) not reduce it.

3) Creates blackout zones where college football isn't really covered by a product. No New England product save BC (and they're private and largely unsupported save alumni). Few Inter Mountain West products.

(04-13-2014 10:54 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 10:25 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 07:55 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no worries about the P5 choosing "to only play games amongst themselves in the future." If that happened they would all have to play half of their games on the road, rather than playing seven or eight at home every season. And half of the P5 schools would end up with losing seasons every year and miss out on bowl games. Their fans would riot at the very prospect. Will never happen.

This isn't the near future, for those reasons.

But it might be the long-term future, if the Kessler lawsuit or some other event leads to CFB players receiving genuine compensation and not just scholarships that don't lead to degrees for star players (and a very large percentage of other FBS football players). If there is just one component of the current rules that 90% of the G5 must have to stay in the FBS club, it is the current shamateur status of CFB players, the rules that fix their above-the-table compensation at zero dollars.

Can the fans of the Tide and Ducks and Buckeyes and Horns adjust to a world in which 10-2 is outstanding, 8-4 might squeeze into a larger playoff system, and an off year will mean 6-6 instead of 9-3? I think they could learn to live without the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, the Outback Bowl, etc. And (as noted above in this thread) the Big Boys' season-ticket holders would definitely prefer paying for six good home games to paying for 4 or 5 good games plus 2 or 3 blah matchups.

Fans of the Dallas Cowboys don't riot when their team is 8-8 every year, and for some reason they don't stop putting money in Jerry Jones' bank accounts. The change would definitely be a big adjustment for the t-shirt bandwagon fans of the traditional CFB powers, but over time it would work out.

I don't think that ESPN is gonna want this either. Here's what that would do

1) Removes a lot of fans from the equation. Sure, I'll passively root for Auburn, but I'm not going to pay UVerse or Comcast 300 bucks a year simply to watch a team (which is what I probably end up paying for ESPN through my cable bill) for which I'm not the primary fan. I'll just cut the cord and go with wifi TV.

2) Removes a lot of content from the equation. It might make some games more valuable, but would reduce ESPN's ability to play content off against content. ESPN is trying to create content (sponsoring bowls etc.) not reduce it.

3) Creates blackout zones where college football isn't really covered by a product. No New England product save BC (and they're private and largely unsupported save alumni). Few Inter Mountain West products.

Agree. This is why I believe the final number will be 80-100 schools at the top level---not 65. I can easily see a large G5 nationwide conference being included, maybe even AQ, that includes the better known G5 schools along with G5 schools that fill the holes in a newly formed D4 footprint.

(04-12-2014 07:38 PM)Proud Bammer Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 06:25 PM)texasorange Wrote:  And as for Saban's comments; I just don't ever see that happening & I am curious as to his motive for saying it.

There's a lot of unhappiness among the ticket base at paying Notre Dame prices to see Western Carolina and Chattanooga.

This. With a bullet.

(04-13-2014 09:09 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  My personal opinion is that the B12 will expand at some point and barring something crazy like a couple of ACC teams moving (which seems improbable) then BYU and Cincinnati make a good pairing to bring gains to the conference.

I don't see any current ACC-member wanting to leave the ACC in favor of the Big <12. That's really hard to fathom, IMHO.

I can see the Big <12 eventually taking in BYU, plus either the top 1 (makes 12) or the top 3 (makes 14) of all teams from the non-P5 conferences. Geographically, that includes everybody from San Diego State to UCF to UConn.

(04-13-2014 10:25 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 07:55 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no worries about the P5 choosing "to only play games amongst themselves in the future." If that happened they would all have to play half of their games on the road, rather than playing seven or eight at home every season. And half of the P5 schools would end up with losing seasons every year and miss out on bowl games. Their fans would riot at the very prospect. Will never happen.

This isn't the near future, for those reasons.

But it might be the long-term future, if the Kessler lawsuit or some other event leads to CFB players receiving genuine compensation and not just scholarships that don't lead to degrees for star players (and a very large percentage of other FBS football players). If there is just one component of the current rules that 90% of the G5 must have to stay in the FBS club, it is the current shamateur status of CFB players, the rules that fix their above-the-table compensation at zero dollars.

Can the fans of the Tide and Ducks and Buckeyes and Horns adjust to a world in which 10-2 is outstanding, 8-4 might squeeze into a larger playoff system, and an off year will mean 6-6 instead of 9-3? I think they could learn to live without the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, the Outback Bowl, etc. And (as noted above in this thread) the Big Boys' season-ticket holders would definitely prefer paying for six good home games to paying for 4 or 5 good games plus 2 or 3 blah matchups.

Fans of the Dallas Cowboys don't riot when their team is 8-8 every year, and for some reason they don't stop putting money in Jerry Jones' bank accounts. The change would definitely be a big adjustment for the t-shirt bandwagon fans of the traditional CFB powers, but over time it would work out.

That's exactly why college football playoffs will always meet resistance. Your average pro football fan is either an adult who completely understands the game or a kid who watches just for fun. People in general understand that the NFL is purely for entertainment.

Your typical college fan is someone who only watches when the team is winning, a student/alumni, or someone who has some type of social tie with the team. All of these make for biased misinformed fans at the college level. There are people who watch Pac-12 football that could not compute that the a SEC team with two more losses would be able to compete with say 10-2 Stanford. Your average T shirt fan is going to say "Hey they have more losses than we do so we are better!"

That is why I have always loved how the SEC put other teams in their place come bowl time. It has helped create the playoff by showing the world going undefeated in the regular season doesn't make you the best team in the country. Being competitive in your conference and then beating other competitive teams from other conferences proves it more.

(04-13-2014 10:25 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 07:55 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no worries about the P5 choosing "to only play games amongst themselves in the future." If that happened they would all have to play half of their games on the road, rather than playing seven or eight at home every season. And half of the P5 schools would end up with losing seasons every year and miss out on bowl games. Their fans would riot at the very prospect. Will never happen.

This isn't the near future, for those reasons.

But it might be the long-term future, if the Kessler lawsuit or some other event leads to CFB players receiving genuine compensation and not just scholarships that don't lead to degrees for star players (and a very large percentage of other FBS football players). If there is just one component of the current rules that 90% of the G5 must have to stay in the FBS club, it is the current shamateur status of CFB players, the rules that fix their above-the-table compensation at zero dollars.

Can the fans of the Tide and Ducks and Buckeyes and Horns adjust to a world in which 10-2 is outstanding, 8-4 might squeeze into a larger playoff system, and an off year will mean 6-6 instead of 9-3? I think they could learn to live without the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, the Outback Bowl, etc. And (as noted above in this thread) the Big Boys' season-ticket holders would definitely prefer paying for six good home games to paying for 4 or 5 good games plus 2 or 3 blah matchups.

Fans of the Dallas Cowboys don't riot when their team is 8-8 every year, and for some reason they don't stop putting money in Jerry Jones' bank accounts. The change would definitely be a big adjustment for the t-shirt bandwagon fans of the traditional CFB powers, but over time it would work out.

CFB is in a different business than NFL.

The NFL is in the business of selling television content, merchandise, tickets and premium entertainment experience (ie the luxury box).

The NFL shares equally or near equally three of those streams. Owners aren't worried that much if a team isn't selling out unless it impacts TV. The NFL owner is profit driven. Maybe not season to season but at least anticipates a large capital gain upon sale. A gain artificially fueled by supply constraint (ie. there is a relocation premium in each sale, paying it to move a team or to stave off the relocation buyer).

TV is the largest revenue source and merchandise I've seen reports that indicate it has passed ticket sales as a revenue source.

The NFL hands a sop to the fan of the poor performing squad, premium selection rights for new talent and the knowledge that your better performing rival will not outspend you. The NFL will also adjust your schedule to make it easier to find success.

CFB is primarily in the business of selling tickets and soliciting donations and sponsorships. Only at the weaker end of each P5 league do you see conference revenue representing about 50% of revenue and that conference revenue is a mix of TV, CFP/BCS distribution, NCAA distribution, conference sponsorship agreements, and revenue from league championship events.

At the upper end of the P5 leagues that conference revenue represents around 30% of revenue.

Successful revenue generation in the P5 (and FBS and Division I in general) is centered not on television revenue but ticket sales, sponsorships and donations.

The CFB is not profit driven. Even the richest programs routinely dip into university operating funds to allow them to spend competitively against rivals. There is neither an annual profit motive nor a long-term capital value growth motive.

The fan of the unsuccessful program understands that a lack of success makes it more difficult to attract top talent (conversely of the NFL where failure provides better access to rookie talent). There is no overseeing body that acts to make sure the next year schedule is easier.

For schools demand for tickets and interest in donating are not just the prime source of revenue, they are revenue sources that respond to success or failure on the field in a fairly quick way. The value of sponsorship in large part rests on attendance.

The economic model of CFB dictates that schools should schedule in a manner that provides teams with as many credible victories as possible and it is apparent that splitting the schedule 7 home and 5 away is considered ideal. Anecdotal evidence indicates that fans discern a difference between P5 and G5 and reflect that with more no-shows and reduced sales and likewise a difference between G5 and FCS and reflect that in attendance as well.

Because of these differences, it is not in financial interest of P5 as a whole to schedule exclusively within the group. Doing so would require a move to more 6 home 6 away scheduling. Losing a home game results in about a 14% drop in ticket inventory. There would be a reduction in sponsorship value with fewer games in the venue. It would create a degree of political pressure as the local community loses a weekend of full hotel occupancy and full restaurants and shops. A reduction in win percentages reduces the number of programs with a happy or satisfied fan base.

Playing completely within the P5 group is not impossible but would require dramatically changing the economy of CFB with some pretty serious shocks to the system.

(04-13-2014 12:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 10:25 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 07:55 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no worries about the P5 choosing "to only play games amongst themselves in the future." If that happened they would all have to play half of their games on the road, rather than playing seven or eight at home every season. And half of the P5 schools would end up with losing seasons every year and miss out on bowl games. Their fans would riot at the very prospect. Will never happen.

This isn't the near future, for those reasons.

But it might be the long-term future, if the Kessler lawsuit or some other event leads to CFB players receiving genuine compensation and not just scholarships that don't lead to degrees for star players (and a very large percentage of other FBS football players). If there is just one component of the current rules that 90% of the G5 must have to stay in the FBS club, it is the current shamateur status of CFB players, the rules that fix their above-the-table compensation at zero dollars.

Can the fans of the Tide and Ducks and Buckeyes and Horns adjust to a world in which 10-2 is outstanding, 8-4 might squeeze into a larger playoff system, and an off year will mean 6-6 instead of 9-3? I think they could learn to live without the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, the Outback Bowl, etc. And (as noted above in this thread) the Big Boys' season-ticket holders would definitely prefer paying for six good home games to paying for 4 or 5 good games plus 2 or 3 blah matchups.

Fans of the Dallas Cowboys don't riot when their team is 8-8 every year, and for some reason they don't stop putting money in Jerry Jones' bank accounts. The change would definitely be a big adjustment for the t-shirt bandwagon fans of the traditional CFB powers, but over time it would work out.

CFB is in a different business than NFL.

The NFL is in the business of selling television content, merchandise, tickets and premium entertainment experience (ie the luxury box).

The NFL shares equally or near equally three of those streams. Owners aren't worried that much if a team isn't selling out unless it impacts TV. The NFL owner is profit driven. Maybe not season to season but at least anticipates a large capital gain upon sale. A gain artificially fueled by supply constraint (ie. there is a relocation premium in each sale, paying it to move a team or to stave off the relocation buyer).

TV is the largest revenue source and merchandise I've seen reports that indicate it has passed ticket sales as a revenue source.

The NFL hands a sop to the fan of the poor performing squad, premium selection rights for new talent and the knowledge that your better performing rival will not outspend you. The NFL will also adjust your schedule to make it easier to find success.

CFB is primarily in the business of selling tickets and soliciting donations and sponsorships. Only at the weaker end of each P5 league do you see conference revenue representing about 50% of revenue and that conference revenue is a mix of TV, CFP/BCS distribution, NCAA distribution, conference sponsorship agreements, and revenue from league championship events.

At the upper end of the P5 leagues that conference revenue represents around 30% of revenue.

Successful revenue generation in the P5 (and FBS and Division I in general) is centered not on television revenue but ticket sales, sponsorships and donations.

The CFB is not profit driven. Even the richest programs routinely dip into university operating funds to allow them to spend competitively against rivals. There is neither an annual profit motive nor a long-term capital value growth motive.

The fan of the unsuccessful program understands that a lack of success makes it more difficult to attract top talent (conversely of the NFL where failure provides better access to rookie talent). There is no overseeing body that acts to make sure the next year schedule is easier.

For schools demand for tickets and interest in donating are not just the prime source of revenue, they are revenue sources that respond to success or failure on the field in a fairly quick way. The value of sponsorship in large part rests on attendance.

The economic model of CFB dictates that schools should schedule in a manner that provides teams with as many credible victories as possible and it is apparent that splitting the schedule 7 home and 5 away is considered ideal. Anecdotal evidence indicates that fans discern a difference between P5 and G5 and reflect that with more no-shows and reduced sales and likewise a difference between G5 and FCS and reflect that in attendance as well.

Because of these differences, it is not in financial interest of P5 as a whole to schedule exclusively within the group. Doing so would require a move to more 6 home 6 away scheduling. Losing a home game results in about a 14% drop in ticket inventory. There would be a reduction in sponsorship value with fewer games in the venue. It would create a degree of political pressure as the local community loses a weekend of full hotel occupancy and full restaurants and shops. A reduction in win percentages reduces the number of programs with a happy or satisfied fan base.

Playing completely within the P5 group is not impossible but would require dramatically changing the economy of CFB with some pretty serious shocks to the system.

And I think it probably would result in LESS total revenue for each school at the higher level, not more as most teams would have to go to a six game home schedule.

And it would not get rid of the have nots. It would just substitute a new set of have nots for the current ones.

(04-12-2014 05:24 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  A quote from a article about BYU being left on in the cold, if new DIV 4 is created. Also some other notable comments about making it publicly known, you want to be a part of the P5.

"In his address Monday, Bowlsby seconded an opinion that Alabama coach Nick Saban threw out last week at the SEC meetings, that the day could come where top-five BCS conference schools might choose to only play games amongst themselves in the future, and not play teams from the Mountain West, Sun Belt, Conference USA, MAC or American conferences."

"I think that selling yourself -- no one likes to see someone out there selling themselves all the time," Holmoe said. "In some instances, I have seen [schools] that put themselves out there publicly, and then get denied. It doesn't look good. And so I think the best course for us is to have the discussions, to monitor the future, and have these discussions off-line. And they know exactly what we want, and what our desires are. So to put that out there publicly is not the right course."

LINK

I have a hard time seeing the P5 conferences agree to play themselves, it seems more like a move a to force the G5 hands. I could however see the conferences instituting a rule banning the play of FCS opponents (as they should)

I think ultimately what the P5 want is their own FB subdivision within the NCAA.

That way they can expand the playoff to 8 so that all 5 conferences get an AQ slot for their champs and there are still 3 Wildcards for teams like BYU and ND to compete for, all without having to listen about the Sunbelt or American whine that their champ deserves an AQ slot in your playoff because they are no longer part of the subdivision.

(04-13-2014 01:42 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think ultimately what the P5 want is their own FB subdivision within the NCAA.

That way they can expand the playoff to 8 so that all 5 conferences get an AQ slot for their champs and there are still 3 Wildcards for teams like BYU and ND to compete for, all without having to listen about the Sunbelt or American whine that their champ deserves an AQ slot in your playoff because they are no longer part of the subdivision.

You are creating facts that have as yet not existed.

The Sun Belt never asked for AQ status when the BCS was in place (that was the MWC and CUSA nee' AAC). Five years ago when the last BCS deal was being negotiated the AQ6 at one point suggested a play-in game pitting the top two conference champs from the non-AQ and eliminating the top 12 requirement. It was the MWC and CUSA who opposed the idea not Sun Belt, MAC, and WAC.

History says if the playoff were expanded to 8 that the G5 group would ask for nothing more than selection if they had a team in the top 8.

I don't know why the idea persists that the G5 a DEMANDING favored status, absent the occasional thoughts of the MWC and the former CUSA schools in AAC, the G5 position has consistently been give us access WHEN we have a team that is performing that well.

The current revenue split to G5 wasn't a G5 request nor proposal. It was a P5 offer and there was no counter offer or negotiation, it was accepted immediately because it was in excess of what the G5 had agreed to fight for.

(04-13-2014 02:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't know why the idea persists that the G5 a DEMANDING favored status, absent the occasional thoughts of the MWC and the former CUSA schools in AAC, the G5 position has consistently been give us access WHEN we have a team that is performing that well.

The idea persists because a small number of very unrealistic fans of G5 teams write lots of message board posts about 16-team playoffs in which every conference in FBS gets an automatic bid. They're not representative of the schools or fan bases in general. They're more like the four people living near the Sriracha hot sauce plant who make 90% of the complaints about the smell of the chilies.

(04-13-2014 02:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 01:42 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think ultimately what the P5 want is their own FB subdivision within the NCAA.

That way they can expand the playoff to 8 so that all 5 conferences get an AQ slot for their champs and there are still 3 Wildcards for teams like BYU and ND to compete for, all without having to listen about the Sunbelt or American whine that their champ deserves an AQ slot in your playoff because they are no longer part of the subdivision.

You are creating facts that have as yet not existed.

The Sun Belt never asked for AQ status when the BCS was in place (that was the MWC and CUSA nee' AAC). Five years ago when the last BCS deal was being negotiated the AQ6 at one point suggested a play-in game pitting the top two conference champs from the non-AQ and eliminating the top 12 requirement. It was the MWC and CUSA who opposed the idea not Sun Belt, MAC, and WAC.

History says if the playoff were expanded to 8 that the G5 group would ask for nothing more than selection if they had a team in the top 8.

I don't know why the idea persists that the G5 a DEMANDING favored status, absent the occasional thoughts of the MWC and the former CUSA schools in AAC, the G5 position has consistently been give us access WHEN we have a team that is performing that well.

The current revenue split to G5 wasn't a G5 request nor proposal. It was a P5 offer and there was no counter offer or negotiation, it was accepted immediately because it was in excess of what the G5 had agreed to fight for.

Exactly. I would be fine with an 8-team playoff that takes the top 8 FBS teams. No AQ berths for anyone. The conferences with teams good enough to be ranked in the top 8 participate. The conferences without a top 8 team don't. Require G5 teams to earn their way in, and require P5 teams to do the same.

(04-13-2014 01:42 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think ultimately what the P5 want is their own FB subdivision within the NCAA.

That way they can expand the playoff to 8 so that all 5 conferences get an AQ slot for their champs and there are still 3 Wildcards for teams like BYU and ND to compete for, all without having to listen about the Sunbelt or American whine that their champ deserves an AQ slot in your playoff because they are no longer part of the subdivision.

I think that this step would have been avoided IF FBS didn't grow from 90-100 all the way to the upper 120s.

(04-13-2014 05:18 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 01:42 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think ultimately what the P5 want is their own FB subdivision within the NCAA.

That way they can expand the playoff to 8 so that all 5 conferences get an AQ slot for their champs and there are still 3 Wildcards for teams like BYU and ND to compete for, all without having to listen about the Sunbelt or American whine that their champ deserves an AQ slot in your playoff because they are no longer part of the subdivision.

I think that this step would have been avoided IF FBS didn't grow from 90-100 all the way to the upper 120s.

Except it is a step that hasn't happened!


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(04-13-2014 05:18 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 01:42 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think ultimately what the P5 want is their own FB subdivision within the NCAA.

That way they can expand the playoff to 8 so that all 5 conferences get an AQ slot for their champs and there are still 3 Wildcards for teams like BYU and ND to compete for, all without having to listen about the Sunbelt or American whine that their champ deserves an AQ slot in your playoff because they are no longer part of the subdivision.

I think that this step would have been avoided IF FBS didn't grow from 90-100 all the way to the upper 120s.

Exactly. The top level of football has never been a mere 65 teams. It's too small. As for the end game, I suspect after 12 years of one P5 conference or more being left out of the playoff each year, the 8 team version will include AQ status for the P5. If a G5 component still exists in the new 8-team playoff era, whatever G5 conferences that still exist will likely share a single AQ playoff slot. The other 2 slots will be wild cards. My guess is the final D4 roster wil contain 80-100 schools. How they get there is anyone's guess.

(04-13-2014 06:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 05:18 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 01:42 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think ultimately what the P5 want is their own FB subdivision within the NCAA.

That way they can expand the playoff to 8 so that all 5 conferences get an AQ slot for their champs and there are still 3 Wildcards for teams like BYU and ND to compete for, all without having to listen about the Sunbelt or American whine that their champ deserves an AQ slot in your playoff because they are no longer part of the subdivision.

I think that this step would have been avoided IF FBS didn't grow from 90-100 all the way to the upper 120s.

Exactly. The top level of football has never been a mere 65 teams. It's too small. As for the end game, I suspect after 12 years of one P5 conference or more being left out of the playoff each year, the 8 team version will include AQ status for the P5. If a G5 component still exists in the new 8-team playoff era, whatever G5 conferences that still exist will likely share a single AQ playoff slot. The other 2 slots will be wild cards. My guess is the final D4 roster wil contain 80-100 schools. How they get there is anyone's guess.

There isn't going to be some arbitrary number of teams. The number has nothing to do with it.

"Geographic coverage" blanketing every square inch of the U.S. with a CFB team is also irrelevant.

What is relevant is, who is both able and willing to pay for whatever a school has to pay to have top-level CFB.