I admit, I spend a lot of time with my head in the clouds, dreaming up this and that and the other thing. Lately, I've been looking at the landscape in this brave new world of college football and wondering where we fit in, and how we can improve our place.

The access bowl slot is a nice thing to have for the G5, but it brings with it a slew of challenges. When we should be working together against the P5, we're fighting over a single slot. I also can't help but feel as if the access bowl was just given to pacify us. Should a G5 team go undefeated in a given year, I'm sure we'll hear the very same arguments against them making the playoffs that we did when Boise State, Cincinnati, etc. went undefeated in the BCS era.

The solution that I've come up with is a bold one that re-writes the conventions of college football, and is in no way, shape, form, or fashion realistic. It is, however, a pie in the sky, and I love those. So here goes:

The Group of Five conferences, along with BYU and Army, get together and form an alliance: the G5 Alliance. All current football conferences are dissolved in favor of a three-tiered promotion/relegation pyramid. The top twelve teams form Tier 1, split into Eastern and Western divisions of six teams each. The next twenty make up Tier 2, split into two ten-team divisions. Four eight-team divisions make up Tier 3. At the end of each season, the top team from each division is promoted to replace the worst team(s) from the division above.* Divisions are then redrawn, keeping divisions as geographically relevant as possible. The conferences remain as they currently stand for all other sports.

This does a few things. First of all, it ensures that the cream rises to the top. The strength-of-schedule argument that is so commonly used against the G5 programs that dare make an appearance on the national stage is severely lessened. A team like Marshall or UCF no longer has to take the SOS hit from Gordon Gee's Little Sisters of the Poor. While the likelihood of a team making it through the season undefeated is decreased, the playoff case of one that does make it through is much stronger.

For the second and third tier teams, the pyramid system provides more even competition against more local and regional opponents. At the bottom tiers, opponents are much closer together both on the map and on the field.

This is how it would look, based on last year's Warren Nolan numbers:

Tier 1

EAST
UCF
ECU
Bowling Green
Ball State
Marshall
Navy

WEST
NIU
Fresno State
North Texas
Utah State
Houston
Rice

Tier 2

EAST
Cincinnati
WKU
Buffalo
Toledo
Arkansas State
FAU
MT
South Alabama
Ohio
Central Michigan

WEST
BYU
UTSA
ULL
Boise State
SDSU
Colorado State
SJSU
ULM
Tulane
UNLV

Tier 3

NORTH
Kent State
Akron
UConn
Temple
Army
Eastern Michigan
Western Michigan
UMass

EAST
ODU
USF
FIU
Georgia State
Miami (OH)
Charlotte
App State
Georgia Southern

SOUTH
Texas State
Troy
SMU
Tulsa
Memphis
Louisiana Tech
UAB
Southern Miss

WEST
Wyoming
Nevada
New Mexico
UTEP
Air Force
Idaho
Hawai'i
NMSU

*The bottom two teams from each Tier 2 division are relegated, as there are a total of four teams that are promoted from Tier 3 each year.

Relegation never works in college sports because senior-heavy teams are the best bet to be promoted, and when they go up, they're in way over their heads with underclassmen playing a much tougher schedule. Plus it's harder to build an OOC schedule when you don't know what division you'll be in or who'll be with you. And recruiting becomes a nightmare because you can't promise recruits much of anything in terms of exposure.

I get why people like promotion/relegation in the abstract, and if they could have done it when MLS started, it might well have worked there. But it's a no-go in a farm system-based pro league, and it's definitely a no-go among colleges.

is this a joke

1. you have Cincy that was 9-4 last year and 10-3 for the two years prior to that against much tougher competition in "tier 2" while you have north Texas state that was 9-4 against hot garbage and that has had 1 winning season in 9 seasons in "tier 1"

you have Louisiana that was 9-4 last year and for the two years prior in "tier 2" while the school that was 9-4 against similar hot garbage north Texas state and that had 8 losing seasons before that is in "tier 1"

2. you have BYU that was 8-5 last year in "tier 2" yet BYU beat Texas, Houston and Utah State last year and yet UH and Utah State are in "tier 1"

also UH was 8-5 last year as well and had that loss to BYU, but BYU is still in "tier 2" not to mention that BYU would kick the crap out of north Texas state and BYU has not had a losing season since 2005 when they were 6-6 (which is not even a losing season) and in 2004 5-6 VS the 8 years of sucking for north Texas state

3. Cincy was 9-4 and beat UH and is in "tier 2" while 8-5 UH that lost to Cincy is in "tier 1"

4. you are overlooking the massive complexity that goes into scheduling, getting hotel rooms for 120+ people that have team meeting facilities, charter or commercial flights for 120+ people, fan planning to make away games and getting rooms and time off and travel plans

5. you are ignoring rivalries

6. you are ignoring recruiting and games played and scheduled with recruiting in mind

7. pretending that strength of schedule does not matter is silly

8. why is it always fans of D1-AA move up teams that want to self segregate and basically fall back down to D1-AA so they can start mixing it up with a fresh batch of move ups

these pro sports like ideas for college sports are stupid and ignorant of all the things it takes to put a game on and the planning and scheduling and the massive additional cost for teams and fans that would happen if teams were having to make travel plans for games with less than a years notice......it would break many teams especially without the additional million dollars or so that many teams NEED for money games against D1-A/P5 teams

9. you are pretending that all teams that are in divisions would always fit some meaningful grouping that would not have teams flying all over the country for games

10. failed idea

My feeling is that if the G5 wants to work together on something---it should be the creation of 3 new high end bowls that would create four landing spots for the G5 champs NOT landing the access bowl.

G5 #1 vs at large----already exists

G5 #2 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl

G5 #3 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl


G5 #4 vs G5 #5--new G5 owned and operated bowl

The money to create the bowls can come from the 75 million the G5 gets to split among itself from the new playoff. The money would be used to raise the payout high enough to attract a good power conference selection for two of the bowls (they would get more than the G5 teams). All participating G5 champs would get 1 million each. The G5 would own the bowl games, so the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales would be owned by the G5. If run right, the bowls would require little yearly funding, as the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales income would largely support the bowl (worst case) or the bowls may even throw off excess dollars (best result) which would be split evenly by the G5 conferences.

Conference realignment board.

thanks but no thanks

The G5 will never be able to work together because they are always just one defection away from a scramble to the lifeboats.

this only helps confirm the validity of labeling "P5" and "G5". Instead we should all be fighting to take down those labels and demand equal treatment for equal membership. There is no P5 and G5, there is only FBS.

(09-16-2014 04:32 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Relegation never works in college sports because senior-heavy teams are the best bet to be promoted, and when they go up, they're in way over their heads with underclassmen playing a much tougher schedule. Plus it's harder to build an OOC schedule when you don't know what division you'll be in or who'll be with you. And recruiting becomes a nightmare because you can't promise recruits much of anything in terms of exposure.

I get why people like promotion/relegation in the abstract, and if they could have done it when MLS started, it might well have worked there. But it's a no-go in a farm system-based pro league, and it's definitely a no-go among colleges.

Relegation also does not work with multiple sports. No AD or President wants their school in 8 different conferences or divisions.

This proposal also give the P5 what it wants but will never admit - Div 4-AA and a reason not to play G5 teams. There are a handful of teams that have the resources to work their way out of 4-AA. Once they leave it will be FCS.

i think its a great idea. leave all the aac teams out of your proposal and a few of the mwc teams and call it D1-AA

(09-16-2014 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling is that if the G5 wants to work together on something---it should be the creation of 3 new high end bowls that would create four landing spots for the G5 champs NOT landing the access bowl.

G5 #1 vs at large----already exists

G5 #2 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl

G5 #3 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl


G5 #4 vs G5 #5--new G5 owned and operated bowl

The money to create the bowls can come from the 75 million the G5 gets to split among itself from the new playoff. The money would be used to raise the payout high enough to attract a good power conference selection for two of the bowls (they would get more than the G5 teams). All participating G5 champs would get 1 million each. The G5 would own the bowl games, so the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales would be owned by the G5. If run right, the bowls would require little yearly funding, as the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales income would largely support the bowl (worst case) or the bowls may even throw off excess dollars (best result) which would be split evenly by the G5 conferences.

IMO the problem with that is..the P5 conferences are not likely to agree to playing in the G5 bowls,....at least not top 3-5 teams

(09-16-2014 05:43 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  this only helps confirm the validity of labeling "P5" and "G5". Instead we should all be fighting to take down those labels and demand equal treatment for equal membership. There is no P5 and G5, there is only FBS.

On August 8, 2014, the Division 1 board of directors approved by supermajority (including those reps from the so-called G5) a line in the sand between the ACC, B1G, XII, SEC, and PAC and everyone else in FBS. Like it or not, hate it or not, there is a P5 and then everyone else. Deal with it. The validity was constructed from the governance structure, not any media labels.

(09-16-2014 07:21 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling is that if the G5 wants to work together on something---it should be the creation of 3 new high end bowls that would create four landing spots for the G5 champs NOT landing the access bowl.

G5 #1 vs at large----already exists

G5 #2 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl

G5 #3 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl


G5 #4 vs G5 #5--new G5 owned and operated bowl

The money to create the bowls can come from the 75 million the G5 gets to split among itself from the new playoff. The money would be used to raise the payout high enough to attract a good power conference selection for two of the bowls (they would get more than the G5 teams). All participating G5 champs would get 1 million each. The G5 would own the bowl games, so the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales would be owned by the G5. If run right, the bowls would require little yearly funding, as the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales income would largely support the bowl (worst case) or the bowls may even throw off excess dollars (best result) which would be split evenly by the G5 conferences.

IMO the problem with that is..the P5 conferences are not likely to agree to playing in the G5 bowls,....at least not top 3-5 teams

It depends on how much you pay. You also don't even have to get a single conference to commit. For instance, you might just get those 2 slots placed into the same pool as the Liberty, Music City, Gator, and Texas Bowls. A conference would only be going there 2 out of 6 years. The 12 slots would be spread around over 5 conferences over 6 years and would pay as much or more than the other bowls in that pool. You could also leave an option to take BYU if they were ranked. Most P5 conferences would only spend 2 years going to the bowl. Not a big commitment and prevents bowl burnout. They need to be in fun locations with nice facilities if possible. San Antonio, Las Vegas (if the ever build a new stadium), Atlanta, and Miami are all interesting options.

(09-16-2014 07:21 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling is that if the G5 wants to work together on something---it should be the creation of 3 new high end bowls that would create four landing spots for the G5 champs NOT landing the access bowl.

G5 #1 vs at large----already exists

G5 #2 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl

G5 #3 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl


G5 #4 vs G5 #5--new G5 owned and operated bowl

The money to create the bowls can come from the 75 million the G5 gets to split among itself from the new playoff. The money would be used to raise the payout high enough to attract a good power conference selection for two of the bowls (they would get more than the G5 teams). All participating G5 champs would get 1 million each. The G5 would own the bowl games, so the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales would be owned by the G5. If run right, the bowls would require little yearly funding, as the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales income would largely support the bowl (worst case) or the bowls may even throw off excess dollars (best result) which would be split evenly by the G5 conferences.

IMO the problem with that is..the P5 conferences are not likely to agree to playing in the G5 bowls,....at least not top 3-5 teams

Yup. The collusion against playing the G5 with anything but the last few available teams in each P5 has already cemented the P5 lineup for the next 6 years. I fear that by the end of the cycle, the P5 will only embolden that position and getting these kind of games (even with a huge chunk of the $75M as a carrot) will not be possible. The Access Bowl slot and the 25% of the at-large revenue from the CFP was the bone thrown to the G5 for not crying too much about the situation. Several G5 conferences will make far more from the CFP than their own TV deal.

(09-16-2014 08:35 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 07:21 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling is that if the G5 wants to work together on something---it should be the creation of 3 new high end bowls that would create four landing spots for the G5 champs NOT landing the access bowl.

G5 #1 vs at large----already exists

G5 #2 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl

G5 #3 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl


G5 #4 vs G5 #5--new G5 owned and operated bowl

The money to create the bowls can come from the 75 million the G5 gets to split among itself from the new playoff. The money would be used to raise the payout high enough to attract a good power conference selection for two of the bowls (they would get more than the G5 teams). All participating G5 champs would get 1 million each. The G5 would own the bowl games, so the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales would be owned by the G5. If run right, the bowls would require little yearly funding, as the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales income would largely support the bowl (worst case) or the bowls may even throw off excess dollars (best result) which would be split evenly by the G5 conferences.

IMO the problem with that is..the P5 conferences are not likely to agree to playing in the G5 bowls,....at least not top 3-5 teams

Yup. The collusion against playing the G5 with anything but the last few available teams in each P5 has already cemented the P5 lineup for the next 6 years. I fear that by the end of the cycle, the P5 will only embolden that position and getting these kind of games (even with a huge chunk of the $75M as a carrot) will not be possible. The Access Bowl slot and the 25% of the at-large revenue from the CFP was the bone thrown to the G5 for not crying too much about the situation. Several G5 conferences will make far more from the CFP than their own TV deal.

Perhaps, I still feel that the payouts are the problem. Bowls with large payouts don't want to invite a G5. If they are paying big money--they know they can get a P5. A situation where a bowl is willing to pay big money---and wants a G5-P5 match-up doesn't exist. My guess is that a P5 is just fine sending a #3-5 selection to that bowl to pick up that pay check. Honestly---when has the P5 ever said no to millions of dollars? Make the payout high enough, and they will come.

(09-16-2014 06:53 PM)shere khan Wrote:  i think its a great idea. leave all the aac teams out of your proposal and a few of the mwc teams and call it D1-AA

(09-16-2014 08:30 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:43 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  this only helps confirm the validity of labeling "P5" and "G5". Instead we should all be fighting to take down those labels and demand equal treatment for equal membership. There is no P5 and G5, there is only FBS.

On August 8, 2014, the Division 1 board of directors approved by supermajority (including those reps from the so-called G5) a line in the sand between the ACC, B1G, XII, SEC, and PAC and everyone else in FBS. Like it or not, hate it or not, there is a P5 and then everyone else. Deal with it. The validity was constructed from the governance structure, not any media labels.

oh, I have to deal with it? my bad, I didn't know that.

(09-16-2014 08:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 08:35 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 07:21 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling is that if the G5 wants to work together on something---it should be the creation of 3 new high end bowls that would create four landing spots for the G5 champs NOT landing the access bowl.

G5 #1 vs at large----already exists

G5 #2 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl

G5 #3 vs #3-5 selection from a power conference--new G5 owned and operated bowl


G5 #4 vs G5 #5--new G5 owned and operated bowl

The money to create the bowls can come from the 75 million the G5 gets to split among itself from the new playoff. The money would be used to raise the payout high enough to attract a good power conference selection for two of the bowls (they would get more than the G5 teams). All participating G5 champs would get 1 million each. The G5 would own the bowl games, so the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales would be owned by the G5. If run right, the bowls would require little yearly funding, as the media rights, naming rights, and ticket sales income would largely support the bowl (worst case) or the bowls may even throw off excess dollars (best result) which would be split evenly by the G5 conferences.

IMO the problem with that is..the P5 conferences are not likely to agree to playing in the G5 bowls,....at least not top 3-5 teams

Yup. The collusion against playing the G5 with anything but the last few available teams in each P5 has already cemented the P5 lineup for the next 6 years. I fear that by the end of the cycle, the P5 will only embolden that position and getting these kind of games (even with a huge chunk of the $75M as a carrot) will not be possible. The Access Bowl slot and the 25% of the at-large revenue from the CFP was the bone thrown to the G5 for not crying too much about the situation. Several G5 conferences will make far more from the CFP than their own TV deal.

Perhaps, I still feel that the payouts are the problem. Bowls with large payouts don't want to invite a G5. If they are paying big money--they know they can get a P5. A situation where a bowl is willing to pay big money---and wants a G5-P5 match-up doesn't exist. My guess is that a P5 is just fine sending a #3-5 selection to that bowl to pick up that pay check. Honestly---when has the P5 ever said no to millions of dollars? Make the payout high enough, and they will come.

The P5 said no to a playoff at first, even with the knowledge that they would make more money. The P5 has said no to expanding the playoff beyond 4 teams, even though they know it will make more money. You may be right, but also convincing the G5 to give up the money and literally hand it over to the P5 just to get a more prestigious bowl game might be a tough sell too.

No.

I agree that the G5 need to band together. I think your statement that there is institutionalized differences between P5 and G5 on governance should be enough to wake up the G5 to reality and action.

I don't think yearly relegation will work, but relagation every 2 years (so there is a home and home) might work. Even then, you are pushing it.

I think you have to look at being a G5 two ways - football and non-football. A unified G5 would break non-football sports into regional conferences to save money. Football is not nearly as cost-conscious on travel, despite the large teams, due to the revenue produced.

The football G5 would negotiate a united TV contract to maximize leverage, and negotiate a united post-season to maximize leverage there. It would be top teams vs. top teams based on a selection committee or ranking system, not the current hodge-podge of min-payout bowls with fixed conference alignments no matter how good or bad the team is.

The other advantage of a united G5 is keeping IAA schools out. Teams that are good will be allowed to move up. Those who aren't good and aren't ready (Idaho, UMass) can not take advantage of conferences that are collapsing and need a quick call-up.

For those who say "the G5 won't schedule us" check out Baylor or the SEC. The Sunbelt is a de-facto third division of the SEC, the MAC a de-facto third division of the B1G.

I would hope at this point that the G5 would realize that they need to come together while the TV money is still good. However, given the history, I doubt they will.