Sun Belt, MAC, and C-USA would likely be in, as their top teams face each other this year.

New Orleans: Troy (SB #1) v. North Texas (CUSA #2) (Troy won - 25K attendance)
Boca Raton: Akron (MAC #2) v. FAU (CUSA #1)(tonight)
Mobile: Appalachian St. (SB #1) v. Toledo (MAC #1)

Not sure the AAC or MWC would be in with their champs, but might be willing to contribute a third place team to the G5 playoff.

(12-19-2017 02:45 PM)micahandme Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 02:33 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Why would a G5 playoff generate anymore revenue than the current FCS playoffs.

The only answer I can think of is their TV contract would be inflated in order to get them out of the NY6 completely. In other words they would be paid to go away

Umm...because the G5 is bigger AND have 100X the alumni of FCS AND have a far-superior football product.

Why do more people watch the NFL than college? Why do fewer people watch high school football on TV than G5? Don't be dumb.

I don't think that's true. LEts go MAC vs Missouri Valley Football Conference. Do the MAC schools really have significantly more alumni than the MVFC schools?

MAC (Data is from whatever I could find on google.)
Akron 154,000.
Ball State 178,000
BGSU I can't find data
Buffalo 240,000

MVFC.
Illinois State 210,000
Indiana State 100,000
Missouri State 110,000
North Dakota State I Can't find data

So unless my sample (alphabetical) is wildly unrepresentative, then the top FCS schools are roughly half the size of the lower-FBS schools in the same general region. So maybe a G5 playoff would attract twice the attention of the FCS playoffs--which is still negligible.

Would the alumni numbers be different if we matched CUSA or the Sun Belt up against DavidSt's 10 favorite FBS candidates from the South?

I"m pretty sure the defining feature of G5 football schools is that they play football in the same division, technically, as Oklahoma and Alabama and USC and Ohio State.

(12-19-2017 12:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 08:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  How do they have any case at all? What term of the contract is being violated? Not a single one has ever come to light.

The criteria adopted by the committee eliminates every G5 before the season starts. You havent heard anyone mention that? I have. Most everyone on these has. Any playoff agreement written in that manner would expose the P5 to antitrust violations--so, Im betting they wrote the CFP contract in a way that suggests every team from every conference would receive fair and equal treatment. So--either its anti trust--or the agreement is being administered in a manner that results in a process that fails to live up to the original agreement (ie--misleading and fraudulent practices). My guess is they didnt write in a way that would leave them open to anti-trust/anti-competitive issues...which is why I suspect you'd have a better chance to prove fraud/misrepresentation.

What would be the fraud/misrepresentation?

The committee didn't adopt its own criteria, the criteria were established for the committee by the CFP agreement. The agreement creates a committee, and instructs that committee to consider three factors as being particularly important - conference titles, strength of schedule, and head to head (where relevant).

The G5 commissioners agreed to that criteria as well.

You've argued that a key reform would be reconstituting the committee to include a rep from every conference. I asked you how think the CFP results would have been different in any year, 2014 - 2017, if it been constituted that way. Well?

Truth is, any committee would have ended up with the same four teams we have had in the playoffs, with the only exceptions having no bearing on the G5, like maybe TCU instead of Ohio State in 2014, or maybe Ohio State rather than Alabama this year. Those are the only conceivable differences.

I think the top 4 would look remarkably similar in the last few years had the committee been appointed as I suggest. I think there would be less brand loyaty--so Penn St might have been in over Ohio St and Ohio St may have been in over Bama this year. But..largely it would be the same in the top 4. That said, undefeated G5's with 2 top 25 wins would be well inside the top 10 and in the conversation for the playoff....not like today where any vaguely interested college football fan knows a G5 has absolutely no chance of making the playoff. An undefeated G5 with a signature P5 win should have a legit shot at the playoff---there is absolutely zero chance of that happening in the current system (surely you agree with that).

I will always maintain that had Houston gone unbeaten last year, they would have made the playoffs, over Washington.

Its an odd situation when Im the one who is less optimistic of the G5 situation than you. But--if you look up the UH schedule from 2016---the SOS is not good--despite playing 2 top 5 P5 teams. I realized long ago that the committee isnt looking for the top 4. They are looking for the top 4 big brands. Im not even confident that a TCU or Indiana can get in regardless of going undefeated. I know for a fact, when it comes to G5, they have no intention of letting a G5 in the top 4 and found a metric that will keep them out (SOS). There is absolutely no way a G5 can play an 8 game G5 conference schedule and finish much above the 65th in SOS. Its essentially impossible as the conference schedule wil always act as an anchor in comparison to P5 conference schedules.

This is ^^^ 100% true

(12-19-2017 10:36 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 07:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 02:37 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 11:12 PM)panama Wrote:  Which teams? ULM? I want names. LOL

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Not sure where ULM is now, but they were in there at one point. Texas State has a very strange AD who could support anything as well.

You know, the bottom schools of the G5, the one who have little to fight for, and could stand to gain from everyone being reduced a peg. Also, the ones who probably wouldn't complain terribly if they had to play with a few former FCS mates as well.

I mean, I can see the incentive. Lets say your the President of oh...Kent State. You're probably never going to challenge for the MAC. There's an odd year in which the MAC champ MIGHT be so good they end up pulling a WMU and cracking the playoff, but it's going to take some help from other leagues. You look out at your games and stare at dwindling crowds, struggling to compete in a market with loads of P5's nearby, and you have to wonder if doing your own thing isn't the worst idea after all.

It comes down to whether or not you want your University to be able to say "We are the Champion of the G5", or "We won the Peach Bowl." I can see the idea that more people might be more willing to jump on the former than the latter. Especially if it became recognized and televised.

I guess it comes down to a single question. if Central Florida beats Auburn, is anybody in the College Football World outside of the AAC going to notice...or care?

This whole discussion is haunted by the fact that what you're talking about exists and has existed, it was called Division I-AA and is now called FCS. It makes no money, it gets no attention, and except for the title game is overshadowed by the sorriest MAC-Sun Belt 6-6 vs 7-5 bowl game on ESPN-U.

It's not an accident that schools like Appalachian State and UMass and Nevada and Boise State and Idaho and frankly anyone who got the chance (except for James MAdison University) took the first ticket they could out of there.

Everyone has the chance, but the vast majority of IAA/FCS schools have remained there.

There's just zero evidence that the JMU's of the world were better off under the pre-1978 regime than they are now. Small potato schools are small potato schools, regardless of NCAA divisional organization.

If IAA schools are better off than G5 schools (who are living under the pre 1978 regime) than why do so many leave to go G5 and why are some like Lamar and Eastern Kentucky begging for a conference invite so they can get out?

IMO, that's not the best question is, why did at least 3x as many not leave to go G5 and stayed in IAA/FCS instead?

Obviously, being FBS is better for some schools. I'm not saying Ohio State football would be as well off if it left the B1G and became an FCS school, that's ridiculous.

But not all schools have the B1G waiting for them. The real issue is, for a school that is going to be FCS/IAA anyway, that cannot or will not for whatever reason move up to FBS, were they better or worse off under the (a) pre-1978 regime, when FCS schools were all "division I", just like the Ohio States of the world, or (b) post-1978, with the Ohio States broken off in to an upper FBS division while they remain in a new IAA/FCS division?

To my recollection, the answer is "neither better nor worse off", but if anything, somewhat better off, in that thanks to the FCS playoffs, the better schools like the JMUs and NDSTs, can gain exposure that they never got when they were all in one giant "Division I" with everyone else.

That's what seems to be missing here: When JMU and NDSU were in Division I with Notre Dame and Ohio State, their football programs weren't any better off than they are now, even though in 1976 they technically were competing for the same national title that Notre Dame was, whereas today, they aren't. Didn't hurt them.

(12-19-2017 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 12:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 08:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The criteria adopted by the committee eliminates every G5 before the season starts. You havent heard anyone mention that? I have. Most everyone on these has. Any playoff agreement written in that manner would expose the P5 to antitrust violations--so, Im betting they wrote the CFP contract in a way that suggests every team from every conference would receive fair and equal treatment. So--either its anti trust--or the agreement is being administered in a manner that results in a process that fails to live up to the original agreement (ie--misleading and fraudulent practices). My guess is they didnt write in a way that would leave them open to anti-trust/anti-competitive issues...which is why I suspect you'd have a better chance to prove fraud/misrepresentation.

What would be the fraud/misrepresentation?

The committee didn't adopt its own criteria, the criteria were established for the committee by the CFP agreement. The agreement creates a committee, and instructs that committee to consider three factors as being particularly important - conference titles, strength of schedule, and head to head (where relevant).

The G5 commissioners agreed to that criteria as well.

You've argued that a key reform would be reconstituting the committee to include a rep from every conference. I asked you how think the CFP results would have been different in any year, 2014 - 2017, if it been constituted that way. Well?

Truth is, any committee would have ended up with the same four teams we have had in the playoffs, with the only exceptions having no bearing on the G5, like maybe TCU instead of Ohio State in 2014, or maybe Ohio State rather than Alabama this year. Those are the only conceivable differences.

I think the top 4 would look remarkably similar in the last few years had the committee been appointed as I suggest. I think there would be less brand loyaty--so Penn St might have been in over Ohio St and Ohio St may have been in over Bama this year. But..largely it would be the same in the top 4. That said, undefeated G5's with 2 top 25 wins would be well inside the top 10 and in the conversation for the playoff....not like today where any vaguely interested college football fan knows a G5 has absolutely no chance of making the playoff. An undefeated G5 with a signature P5 win should have a legit shot at the playoff---there is absolutely zero chance of that happening in the current system (surely you agree with that).

I will always maintain that had Houston gone unbeaten last year, they would have made the playoffs, over Washington.

Its an odd situation when Im the one who is less optimistic of the G5 situation than you. But--if you look up the UH schedule from 2016---the SOS is not good--despite playing 2 top 5 P5 teams. I realized long ago that the committee isnt looking for the top 4. They are looking for the top 4 big brands. Im not even confident that a TCU or Indiana can get in regardless of going undefeated. I know for a fact, when it comes to G5, they have no intention of letting a G5 in the top 4 and found a metric that will keep them out (SOS). There is absolutely no way a G5 can play an 8 game G5 conference schedule and finish much above the 65th in SOS. Its essentially impossible as the conference schedule wil always act as an anchor in comparison to P5 conference schedules.

You have a point, in that Houston's overall SOS wasn't that strong despite the presence of Oklahoma and Louisville, and that could have drug them down. I recall arguing with someone about that last year, for some reason there was an argument about Houston vs Boise SOS, and i said that despite Houston having the high-profile P5 games, their final SOS wasn't going to be much better than Boise's. I was told that was crazy, but the final Sagarin numbers had them very close, like 76 to 72, no real difference.

But, Washington's SOS wasn't that great either. IIRC, they ended up with an SOS of 53 in Sagarin, but that was after playing Alabama in the playoffs. Before Alabama, it was around 63. Before their bowl game, Houston was 74, so IMO that wouldn't have been enough to overcome Houston's better OOC wins, including over the Big 12 champion, but I agree i'm not nearly 100% sure.

FWIW, doesn't it tell us something about the worthiness of G5 teams, including the alleged "P6" AAC, if their conference schedule acts as such a drag even when they schedule tough P5 teams OOC? That does speak to the worthiness of G5 teams to make the playoffs.

Remember, the bar is extremely high here. Just 4 spots available for 129 teams. You have to be in the 97th percentile of quality. You can be really, really good, and still not be worthy of the playoffs with no bias at all in the process. If this were a beauty contest and we took 129 girls off the streets who all aspired to be models and had to pick just four, there would probably be a few that look as good as prime Angelina Jolie that still wouldn't make the cut.

I mean, imagine if the NCAA hoops tournament was just 4 teams also, with no human involvement in the selection to remove bias, just the top four RPI teams play in the Final Four. How many times would "mid-major" or G5 conferences put teams in the Final Four? Probably not many. Even for a Gonzaga or Butler, it would be very tough to get in. Probably 9 years out of 10, it would be P5 + occasionally a Big East only.

(12-19-2017 01:58 AM)micahandme Wrote:  Did you guys see that The Athletic website (the All-American for football) had an exclusive G5 reporter this season...and he released a G5 All-American team?

What did you think about that? Did you like it because it focused on your teams instead of just talking about Alabama and Clemson incessantly? Or were you offended because they separated you out from the P5?

(I'm not trolling...just still trying to understand what incentive there is for Toledo and UL-Lafayette to be in the same "division" as USC and Ohio State.)

Weak

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Really nice looking cougar ^^^

Panther

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(12-19-2017 04:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 12:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What would be the fraud/misrepresentation?

The committee didn't adopt its own criteria, the criteria were established for the committee by the CFP agreement. The agreement creates a committee, and instructs that committee to consider three factors as being particularly important - conference titles, strength of schedule, and head to head (where relevant).

The G5 commissioners agreed to that criteria as well.

You've argued that a key reform would be reconstituting the committee to include a rep from every conference. I asked you how think the CFP results would have been different in any year, 2014 - 2017, if it been constituted that way. Well?

Truth is, any committee would have ended up with the same four teams we have had in the playoffs, with the only exceptions having no bearing on the G5, like maybe TCU instead of Ohio State in 2014, or maybe Ohio State rather than Alabama this year. Those are the only conceivable differences.

I think the top 4 would look remarkably similar in the last few years had the committee been appointed as I suggest. I think there would be less brand loyaty--so Penn St might have been in over Ohio St and Ohio St may have been in over Bama this year. But..largely it would be the same in the top 4. That said, undefeated G5's with 2 top 25 wins would be well inside the top 10 and in the conversation for the playoff....not like today where any vaguely interested college football fan knows a G5 has absolutely no chance of making the playoff. An undefeated G5 with a signature P5 win should have a legit shot at the playoff---there is absolutely zero chance of that happening in the current system (surely you agree with that).

I will always maintain that had Houston gone unbeaten last year, they would have made the playoffs, over Washington.

Its an odd situation when Im the one who is less optimistic of the G5 situation than you. But--if you look up the UH schedule from 2016---the SOS is not good--despite playing 2 top 5 P5 teams. I realized long ago that the committee isnt looking for the top 4. They are looking for the top 4 big brands. Im not even confident that a TCU or Indiana can get in regardless of going undefeated. I know for a fact, when it comes to G5, they have no intention of letting a G5 in the top 4 and found a metric that will keep them out (SOS). There is absolutely no way a G5 can play an 8 game G5 conference schedule and finish much above the 65th in SOS. Its essentially impossible as the conference schedule wil always act as an anchor in comparison to P5 conference schedules.

You have a point, in that Houston's overall SOS wasn't that strong despite the presence of Oklahoma and Louisville, and that could have drug them down. I recall arguing with someone about that last year, for some reason there was an argument about Houston vs Boise SOS, and i said that despite Houston having the high-profile P5 games, their final SOS wasn't going to be much better than Boise's. I was told that was crazy, but the final Sagarin numbers had them very close, like 76 to 72, no real difference.

But, Washington's SOS wasn't that great either. IIRC, they ended up with an SOS of 53 in Sagarin, but that was after playing Alabama in the playoffs. Before Alabama, it was around 63. Before their bowl game, Houston was 74, so IMO that wouldn't have been enough to overcome Houston's better OOC wins, including over the Big 12 champion, but I agree i'm not nearly 100% sure.

FWIW, doesn't it tell us something about the worthiness of G5 teams, including the alleged "P6" AAC, if their conference schedule acts as such a drag even when they schedule tough P5 teams OOC? That does speak to the worthiness of G5 teams to make the playoffs.

Remember, the bar is extremely high here. Just 4 spots available for 129 teams. You have to be in the 97th percentile of quality. You can be really, really good, and still not be worthy of the playoffs with no bias at all in the process. If this were a beauty contest and we took 129 girls off the streets who all aspired to be models and had to pick just four, there would probably be a few that look as good as prime Angelina Jolie that still wouldn't make the cut.

I mean, imagine if the NCAA hoops tournament was just 4 teams also, with no human involvement in the selection to remove bias, just the top four RPI teams play in the Final Four. How many times would "mid-major" or G5 conferences put teams in the Final Four? Probably not many. Even for a Gonzaga or Butler, it would be very tough to get in. Probably 9 years out of 10, it would be P5 + occasionally a Big East only.

I suspect it actually doesnt tell us much of anything. My guess is the middle of both a P5 conference and the better G5 conferences probably would go close to .500 against one another. Indiana vs Temple...friggin tossup most years. The issue is the G5 and P5 play so few games against each other that you cant tell much. Most of the games are crap G5 teams engaging in body bag games on the road against the top P5's. When you get a top P5 vs a top G5...even on the road--the G5 often plays pretty close or even wins. Thats about what happens when the better P5 teams have to play another top P5 on the road. My guess is the two groups are not much different in their starters---only marginally so in the two deep. After that---I suspect there is a huge difference in quality depth.

(12-19-2017 04:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's what seems to be missing here: When JMU and NDSU were in Division I with Notre Dame and Ohio State, their football programs weren't any better off than they are now, even though in 1976 they technically were competing for the same national title that Notre Dame was, whereas today, they aren't. Didn't hurt them.

JMU and NDSU were never D1 with ND and OSU in 1976. NDSU didn't become D1 until 2014, prior to that they were D2. JMU didn't become IAA until 1980, prior to that they were D3.

JMU is willing to upgrade but they want CUSA not Sunbelt. NDSU got an invite from the Summit to upgrade from D2. If they had gotten an invite from the MAC instead they would probably be FBS.

So, both JMU and NDSU are limited by the opportunities to upgrade to FBS as are most schools in D1AA, not necessarily by lack of desire.

(12-19-2017 10:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I suspect it actually doesnt tell us much of anything. My guess is the middle of both a P5 conference and the better G5 conferences probably would go close to .500 against one another. Indiana vs Temple...friggin tossup most years. The issue is the G5 and P5 play so few games against each other that you cant tell much. Most of the games are crap G5 teams engaging in body bag games on the road against the top P5's. When you get a top P5 vs a top G5...even on the road--the G5 often plays pretty close or even wins. Thats about what happens when the better P5 teams have to play another top P5 on the road. My guess is the two groups are not much different in their starters---only marginally so in the two deep. After that---I suspect there is a huge difference in quality depth.

This is where most G5 would struggle with a true P5 schedule. Injuries would take their toll. 2-star level players fill the injury gaps instead of 4-star level players. Huge drop off.

BUT, a G5 callup would be able to build depth over 2 or 3 recruiting cycles. We saw this with TCU, Utah, and WVU. None were immediately competitive in their P5 conferences and took a step back before they took a step forward.

And, this is why the B12 would be wise to re-consider expansion. If chosen correctly, by the time the B12 media contract is up for renewal, the call-ups would be every bit P5-caliber programs - much like TCU, Utah, and WVU.

(12-15-2017 02:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 11:32 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I'm more worried about playoff access than $. It's stupid that half the teams aren't able to make the so-called playoff. It also creates an uneven playing field in recruiting. The system is setup to maintain inequity, and that's what shouldn't be legal.

If someone wants to argue that it's dumb for the G5 to create their own playoffs because it will make their programs worse off, hurt their interests, that's fine, nothing wrong with promoting your own interests.

But it's wrong to cast a moral dimension to this, because there is no moral dimension. G5 fans who rail about the "unfairness" of the playoffs and money distribution act as if there is this entity called "college football" that is popular with the public, and that the power conferences are arbitrarily and hence unfairly hording the lion's share of the opportunity and dollars that flow from it for themselves.

But that's never been the nature of college football. The dollars that college football generates nationally is and always has been dependent on the appeal of the major football brands, the "blue bloods". It does not flow from the concept of 'college football' in some ethereal sense. Everyone else is basically glomming on and leaching off of their popularity with the general sporting public. When a school like my USF starts up a college football program like we did 20 years ago, we did so because we wanted a piece of the limelight and money that the Alabamas and USCs and Notre Dames had created over many decades. That's the reality.

And when you're glomming on, you don't have the right to complain about how much of the milk you're getting, at least not in a moral sense.

I used to believe that. I don’t know that I do anymore. I obviously believe those big brands bring tremendous value to college football and I frankly have no issue with those brands receiving more of the money derived from college football (which is how it currently works). However, I actually think that college football tends to hurt itself with its heavy handed protection of those brands by using a playoff system that effectively guarantees that a handful of big brands (and only those big brands) can ever participate in the playoff.

If you want the largest ratings possible—you create the most inclusive playoff possible. Every pro league learned this ages ago. It’s not arguable—that’s just a fact.

That would be true - if college football consisted of 30 teams like the pro leagues do. In sports like the NFL and NBA, sure, some teams are more popular than others, but in the end, it is the overall entity, the "NFL" and "NBA" that create the value, and every team brings some value to the league. The Cowboys and Patriots bring more, but the Bucs and Chargers add value too.

But college football isn't that way. It consists of 120 teams, really, about 250 when you add in all the levels, the great bulk of which bring basically zero brand value to the table.

And what makes you think the blue bloods have ever done anything but try to maximize their money? The whole history of college football has been one of blue bloods trying to maximize money, including taking cases to the US supreme court.

If there is more money in an 8-team playoff, we will get that. And if there is, it will once again be due entirely to the fact that this means more Big Baller Brands will be in those playoffs, not because it is inclusive to the san jose states and tulsas of the world.

If you look at the affinity maps you can see who brings brand value. Mostly it’s the P5 but not exclusively. Particularly in the west you see areas with strong G5 support.

(12-26-2017 11:04 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 02:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 11:32 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I'm more worried about playoff access than $. It's stupid that half the teams aren't able to make the so-called playoff. It also creates an uneven playing field in recruiting. The system is setup to maintain inequity, and that's what shouldn't be legal.

If someone wants to argue that it's dumb for the G5 to create their own playoffs because it will make their programs worse off, hurt their interests, that's fine, nothing wrong with promoting your own interests.

But it's wrong to cast a moral dimension to this, because there is no moral dimension. G5 fans who rail about the "unfairness" of the playoffs and money distribution act as if there is this entity called "college football" that is popular with the public, and that the power conferences are arbitrarily and hence unfairly hording the lion's share of the opportunity and dollars that flow from it for themselves.

But that's never been the nature of college football. The dollars that college football generates nationally is and always has been dependent on the appeal of the major football brands, the "blue bloods". It does not flow from the concept of 'college football' in some ethereal sense. Everyone else is basically glomming on and leaching off of their popularity with the general sporting public. When a school like my USF starts up a college football program like we did 20 years ago, we did so because we wanted a piece of the limelight and money that the Alabamas and USCs and Notre Dames had created over many decades. That's the reality.

And when you're glomming on, you don't have the right to complain about how much of the milk you're getting, at least not in a moral sense.

I used to believe that. I don’t know that I do anymore. I obviously believe those big brands bring tremendous value to college football and I frankly have no issue with those brands receiving more of the money derived from college football (which is how it currently works). However, I actually think that college football tends to hurt itself with its heavy handed protection of those brands by using a playoff system that effectively guarantees that a handful of big brands (and only those big brands) can ever participate in the playoff.

If you want the largest ratings possible—you create the most inclusive playoff possible. Every pro league learned this ages ago. It’s not arguable—that’s just a fact.

That would be true - if college football consisted of 30 teams like the pro leagues do. In sports like the NFL and NBA, sure, some teams are more popular than others, but in the end, it is the overall entity, the "NFL" and "NBA" that create the value, and every team brings some value to the league. The Cowboys and Patriots bring more, but the Bucs and Chargers add value too.

But college football isn't that way. It consists of 120 teams, really, about 250 when you add in all the levels, the great bulk of which bring basically zero brand value to the table.

And what makes you think the blue bloods have ever done anything but try to maximize their money? The whole history of college football has been one of blue bloods trying to maximize money, including taking cases to the US supreme court.

If there is more money in an 8-team playoff, we will get that. And if there is, it will once again be due entirely to the fact that this means more Big Baller Brands will be in those playoffs, not because it is inclusive to the san jose states and tulsas of the world.

If you look at the affinity maps you can see who brings brand value. Mostly it’s the P5 but not exclusively. Particularly in the west you see areas with strong G5 support.

There are pockets of non-FBS schools in the west and Central plains.

Gonzaga
Eastern Washington
Northern Arizona (Flagstaff area)
several FCS and D2 Texas schools in areas that is not heavily covered by FBS schools.
Montana and Montana State
The Dakotas
Wichita State
Missouri State
Colorado Mesa at times.

It depends on how the P5 schools preformed in the area. When Washington State was losing, Eastern Washington and Boise State grabbed the highlights from them in football. In basketball? It is Gonzaga. I could say Central Washington (undefeated football team going into the D2 playoffs, and Western Washington going into the D2 basketball tournament for the men's) also got buzz worthy noise and upticked this year. Central Washington was the best hope for the state of Washington to get a championship in football.

(12-14-2017 08:20 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  IF Tulane is not allowed to compete at the highest level, then Tulane should just convert the football stadium into a basketball facility of some sort and stop playing football.

LoL....Tulane "competing at the highest level." You should do stand-up, this sh*t is gold.

Stewart Mandell and Bruce Feldman have a podcast called “The Audible”. During the mailbag segment of the last two episodes they have been pushing the G5 Playoff concept. They think it would improve ratings over the current crap lower tier bowls most of the G5 gets.

I think they are probably correct in the short run—-but because it would eventually sentence the G5 to become the new FCS, the ratings would slowly trend downward as people begin to see it as the JV playoff. People are generally quite interested in determining the identity of the best college team in the nation. The identity of the 65th best team in the nation (which is how the G5 playoff would eventually be perceived) is far less compelling TV.

I think anything that aids in separating the G5 from the P5 is a bad idea from the G5 prospective (and it’s probably a bad long term idea from the P5 prospective as well). Of the G5 splits off, that’s probably 25% of the P5 audience splitting off, I don’t see that as a good thing long term for the top level of football.

(12-27-2017 09:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Stewart Mandell and Bruce Feldman have a podcast called “The Audible”. During the mailbag segment of the last two episodes they have been pushing the G5 Playoff concept. They think it would improve ratings over the current crap lower tier bowls most of the G5 gets.

I think they are probably correct in the short run—-but because it would eventually sentence the G5 to become the new FCS, the ratings would slowly trend downward as people begin to see it as the JV playoff. People are generall6 quite interested in determining the identity of the best college team in the nation. The identity of the 65th best team in the nation (which is how the G5 playoff would eventually be perceived) is far less compelling TV.

I think anything that aids in separating the G5 from the P5 is a bad idea from the G5 prospective (and it’s probably a bad long term idea from the P5 prospective as well). Of the G5 splits off, that’s probably 25% of the P5 audience splitting off, I don’t see that as a good thing long term for the top level of football.

I think before they do that? The P5 schools do see that there are some schools in the G5 that do get viewers, and could be a threat to them in the future of stealing the spotlight. They would grab schools like:
AAC:
Temple
Navy
UCF'
USF
Memphis
Houston
East Carolina
SMU
Cincinnati

C-USA:
UTEP
UTSA
Southern Mississippi
Marshall
Western Kentucky

MAC:
Northern Illinois
Ohio
Toledo
Bowling Green

MWC:
San Diego State
Hawaii
Fresno State
Boise State
UNR
UNLV
Air Force
Colorado State
New Mexico

Sun Belt:
Arkansas State
Appalachian State
Georgia Southern

Ind:
Army
BYU

FCS:
Eastern Washington
Montana
James Madison
Towson
northern Iowa
south Dakota
South Dakota State
North Dakota State
Jacksonville State
Fordham at times
Chattanooga
McNeese State
UCA
Sam houston State

Several schools in G5 are not strong enough to beat a P5.

David I agree there is quality product in the G5.

Back in the non-BCS era it was basically Boise St, TCU, Utah and BYU that had any value. Programs like Houston, UCF, NIU, Ohio were building facilities over most of that time.

TCU, Utah and BYU were lost but you've added Cincinnati, USF, UConn from the BCS leagues plus the development of SBC programs like App St, Troy, Arkansas State.

My prediction when this G5 system was set up was instead of having 2-3 programs that are serious access bowl contenders eventually that list would be 8-10 deep. More depth in my opinion would necessitate a second access bowl in an NY8 system or a series of bowls for the non-CFP G5 champs vs. Top 25 P5 competition.

A G5 playoff IMO is not really needed. A second access bowl might be so conference championship games serve as more of a play-in than what they do now.

(12-27-2017 10:37 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  David I agree there is quality product in the G5.

Back in the non-BCS era it was basically Boise St, TCU, Utah and BYU that had any value. Programs like Houston, UCF, NIU, Ohio were building facilities over most of that time.

TCU, Utah and BYU were lost but you've added Cincinnati, USF, UConn from the BCS leagues plus the development of SBC programs like App St, Troy, Arkansas State.

My prediction when this G5 system was set up was instead of having 2-3 programs that are serious access bowl contenders eventually that list would be 8-10 deep. More depth in my opinion would necessitate a second access bowl in an NY8 system or a series of bowls for the non-CFP G5 champs vs. Top 25 P5 competition.

A G5 playoff IMO is not really needed. A second access bowl might be so conference championship games serve as more of a play-in than what they do now.

Under the WAc when Boise State was there, you had 4 teams that were a treat to the P5 at the time.

Boise State
UNR
Hawaii
Fresno State

One year, they had 4 finished in the top 35 voting. It was those 4. MWC only had TCU, Utah and BYU.
SBC had none
C-USA had Houston and Southern Miss. MAC had Northern Illinois and Miami.
Appalachian State already proved themselves when they beat Michigan.
Eastern Washington could be the next Boise State if they get an invite to the MWC. So could North Dakota State and South Dakota State. It seems that those 2 schools do have fan support who do travel to watch their teams play P5 schools.

(12-27-2017 10:52 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 10:37 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  David I agree there is quality product in the G5.

Back in the non-BCS era it was basically Boise St, TCU, Utah and BYU that had any value. Programs like Houston, UCF, NIU, Ohio were building facilities over most of that time.

TCU, Utah and BYU were lost but you've added Cincinnati, USF, UConn from the BCS leagues plus the development of SBC programs like App St, Troy, Arkansas State.

My prediction when this G5 system was set up was instead of having 2-3 programs that are serious access bowl contenders eventually that list would be 8-10 deep. More depth in my opinion would necessitate a second access bowl in an NY8 system or a series of bowls for the non-CFP G5 champs vs. Top 25 P5 competition.

A G5 playoff IMO is not really needed. A second access bowl might be so conference championship games serve as more of a play-in than what they do now.

Under the WAc when Boise State was there, you had 4 teams that were a treat to the P5 at the time.

Boise State
UNR
Hawaii
Fresno State

One year, they had 4 finished in the top 35 voting. It was those 4. MWC only had TCU, Utah and BYU.
SBC had none
C-USA had Houston and Southern Miss. MAC had Northern Illinois and Miami.
Appalachian State already proved themselves when they beat Michigan.
Eastern Washington could be the next Boise State if they get an invite to the MWC. So could North Dakota State and South Dakota State. It seems that those 2 schools do have fan support who do travel to watch their teams play P5 schools.

What you are talking to with the FCS programs during that period is it was showing potential was there for a stronger non-P5 grouping at the top level.

With all of the programs that have moved from FCS to FBS this decade I think largely most of that potential is realized in the G5. The Dakota schools are outliers because of their unique location recruiting at the high FCS/G5 level into Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska states with no G5 team.

We are seeing App become a start in the G5 era. FAU/FIU have doubled down with Kiffin/Strong as coaches. Its taking the SBC and CUSA a little while for new stars to emerge but the value is there.