(12-18-2017 09:20 AM)panama Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:48 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:08 PM)panama Wrote:  We are still talking playoff outside of the CFP?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I never was, and withdrawing from the bowl system en masse seems like willfully reading that information in the least practical way possible. Taking the four conference winners that didn't get the access bowl and setting them up in a two-round postseason playoff basically amounts to finagling your bowl commitments and adding a single game to the post season schedule - far, far easier than forming a new division and thus almost certainly what was discussed.

...briefly

...as in hey you who bought this up, SHUT UP! And when does lunch arrive?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I'd wager money that the CFP contract expressly prohibits any competing postseason tournament-style arrangements, which would shut those talks down pretty quickly. None of this really refutes the fact that the G5 is desperate for revenue, though.

(12-18-2017 08:34 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I think we all know what the end-game is here: the "g" conferences will be consolidated with (at least the "upper" 2/3 of) the FCS. That's the end-game. Then the CFP can expand to 8 or whatever with no issues.

This idea of a "g5 'playoff'" is just a way to hasten and facilitate that process.

As a fan of an AAC program, I want no part of it.

Even as a fan of a MAC program, I want no part of it. If we need to play another game against a P5 school for the money, we should do it. That would be way more money than we'll ever get from a G5 playoff.

And as for the earlier comment about the networks not causing the perception difference between P5 and G5, the announcers on the network sure do their best to downplay the importance of any G5 games.

(12-18-2017 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 08:34 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I think we all know what the end-game is here: the "g" conferences will be consolidated with (at least the "upper" 2/3 of) the FCS. That's the end-game. Then the CFP can expand to 8 or whatever with no issues.

This idea of a "g5 'playoff'" is just a way to hasten and facilitate that process.

As a fan of an AAC program, I want no part of it.

Even as a fan of a MAC program, I want no part of it. If we need to play another game against a P5 school for the money, we should do it. That would be way more money than we'll ever get from a G5 playoff.

And as for the earlier comment about the networks not causing the perception difference between P5 and G5, the announcers on the network sure do their best to downplay the importance of any G5 games.

To be fair, the announcers are seeing what everyone else is seeing. The current design of the system with a rigged selection committee filled to brim with all P5 representatives will never select a G5 as top 10 team---much less a top 4. The fact that is so obvious to any professional observer of the sport doesnt bode well for the CFP should it ever be taken to court over the antitrust issues. Frankly, I think the CFP is more vulnerable to breach of contract, fraud, and/or misrepresentation than to anti-trust. The system isnt specifically anti-competitive--however, the use of the committee to essentially utilize of criteria that clearly automatically bars all G5 teams from selection before the first snap of the season essentially is designed to undermine the spirit of the CFP agreement. I dont think anyone is planning a lawsuit-but I suspect the G5 would have a pretty good chance of winning.

(12-18-2017 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 08:34 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I think we all know what the end-game is here: the "g" conferences will be consolidated with (at least the "upper" 2/3 of) the FCS. That's the end-game. Then the CFP can expand to 8 or whatever with no issues.

This idea of a "g5 'playoff'" is just a way to hasten and facilitate that process.

As a fan of an AAC program, I want no part of it.

Even as a fan of a MAC program, I want no part of it. If we need to play another game against a P5 school for the money, we should do it. That would be way more money than we'll ever get from a G5 playoff.

And as for the earlier comment about the networks not causing the perception difference between P5 and G5, the announcers on the network sure do their best to downplay the importance of any G5 games.

To be fair, the announcers are seeing what everyone else is seeing. The current design of the system with a rigged selection committee filled to brim with all P5 representatives will never select a G5 as top 10 team---much less a top 4. The fact that is so obvious to any professional observer of the sport doesnt bode well for the CFP should it ever be taken to court over the antitrust issues. Frankly, I think the CFP is more vulnerable to breach of contract, fraud, and/or misrepresentation than to anti-trust. The system isnt specifically anti-competitive--however, the use of the committee to essentially utilize of criteria that clearly automatically bars all G5 teams from selection before the first snap of the season essentially is designed to undermine the spirit of the CFP agreement. I dont think anyone is planning a lawsuit-but I suspect the G5 would have a pretty good chance of winning.

I'm not an attorney, but I suspect the case would hinge upon the simple fact that the NCAA is a voluntary organization. Your school doesn't ***have*** to be part of the NCAA...there are other inter-collegiate athletic organizations out there...but insofar as your school IS--by their own volition--part of the NCAA, you agree to participate in whatever organizational rules the NCAA adopts; including whatever rules around classes of schools and divisions the NCAA adopts.

(12-18-2017 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 08:34 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I think we all know what the end-game is here: the "g" conferences will be consolidated with (at least the "upper" 2/3 of) the FCS. That's the end-game. Then the CFP can expand to 8 or whatever with no issues.

This idea of a "g5 'playoff'" is just a way to hasten and facilitate that process.

As a fan of an AAC program, I want no part of it.

Even as a fan of a MAC program, I want no part of it. If we need to play another game against a P5 school for the money, we should do it. That would be way more money than we'll ever get from a G5 playoff.

And as for the earlier comment about the networks not causing the perception difference between P5 and G5, the announcers on the network sure do their best to downplay the importance of any G5 games.

To be fair, the announcers are seeing what everyone else is seeing. The current design of the system with a rigged selection committee filled to brim with all P5 representatives will never select a G5 as top 10 team---much less a top 4. The fact that is so obvious to any professional observer of the sport doesnt bode well for the CFP should it ever be taken to court over the antitrust issues. Frankly, I think the CFP is more vulnerable to breach of contract, fraud, and/or misrepresentation than to anti-trust. The system isnt specifically anti-competitive--however, the use of the committee to essentially utilize of criteria that clearly automatically bars all G5 teams from selection before the first snap of the season essentially is designed to undermine the spirit of the CFP agreement. I dont think anyone is planning a lawsuit-but I suspect the G5 would have a pretty good chance of winning.

The announcers are basically P5 guys, and they definitely don't seem to think there is any issue with it.

(12-18-2017 01:24 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 08:34 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I think we all know what the end-game is here: the "g" conferences will be consolidated with (at least the "upper" 2/3 of) the FCS. That's the end-game. Then the CFP can expand to 8 or whatever with no issues.

This idea of a "g5 'playoff'" is just a way to hasten and facilitate that process.

As a fan of an AAC program, I want no part of it.

Even as a fan of a MAC program, I want no part of it. If we need to play another game against a P5 school for the money, we should do it. That would be way more money than we'll ever get from a G5 playoff.

And as for the earlier comment about the networks not causing the perception difference between P5 and G5, the announcers on the network sure do their best to downplay the importance of any G5 games.

To be fair, the announcers are seeing what everyone else is seeing. The current design of the system with a rigged selection committee filled to brim with all P5 representatives will never select a G5 as top 10 team---much less a top 4. The fact that is so obvious to any professional observer of the sport doesnt bode well for the CFP should it ever be taken to court over the antitrust issues. Frankly, I think the CFP is more vulnerable to breach of contract, fraud, and/or misrepresentation than to anti-trust. The system isnt specifically anti-competitive--however, the use of the committee to essentially utilize of criteria that clearly automatically bars all G5 teams from selection before the first snap of the season essentially is designed to undermine the spirit of the CFP agreement. I dont think anyone is planning a lawsuit-but I suspect the G5 would have a pretty good chance of winning.

I'm not an attorney, but I suspect the case would hinge upon the simple fact that the NCAA is a voluntary organization. Your school doesn't ***have*** to be part of the NCAA...there are other inter-collegiate athletic organizations out there...but insofar as your school IS--by their own volition--part of the NCAA, you agree to participate in whatever organizational rules the NCAA adopts; including whatever rules around classes of schools and divisions the NCAA adopts.

Thats irrelavent. The NCAA doesnt run the CFP. Besides, Oklahoma argued the exact opposite of that in the 1984 Supreme Court case and won.

What Im saying is the misrepresentation/fraud/breach might actually be a better avenue (as in "easier to prove") than anti-trust. In other words--its really not the system--its the intentional way the system is being run by its administrators. Its being run in a way that makes the agreement essentially a fraudulent document that materially misrepresents the finished product. I think the G5 would probably have a pretty decent case on those grounds.

(12-18-2017 01:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 08:34 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I think we all know what the end-game is here: the "g" conferences will be consolidated with (at least the "upper" 2/3 of) the FCS. That's the end-game. Then the CFP can expand to 8 or whatever with no issues.

This idea of a "g5 'playoff'" is just a way to hasten and facilitate that process.

As a fan of an AAC program, I want no part of it.

Even as a fan of a MAC program, I want no part of it. If we need to play another game against a P5 school for the money, we should do it. That would be way more money than we'll ever get from a G5 playoff.

And as for the earlier comment about the networks not causing the perception difference between P5 and G5, the announcers on the network sure do their best to downplay the importance of any G5 games.

To be fair, the announcers are seeing what everyone else is seeing. The current design of the system with a rigged selection committee filled to brim with all P5 representatives will never select a G5 as top 10 team---much less a top 4. The fact that is so obvious to any professional observer of the sport doesnt bode well for the CFP should it ever be taken to court over the antitrust issues. Frankly, I think the CFP is more vulnerable to breach of contract, fraud, and/or misrepresentation than to anti-trust. The system isnt specifically anti-competitive--however, the use of the committee to essentially utilize of criteria that clearly automatically bars all G5 teams from selection before the first snap of the season essentially is designed to undermine the spirit of the CFP agreement. I dont think anyone is planning a lawsuit-but I suspect the G5 would have a pretty good chance of winning.

The announcers are basically P5 guys, and they definitely don't seem to think there is any issue with it.

I didnt say they had an issue with it. I said they reflected the reality of the current landscape. I just watched a clip from one of the ESPN talking head shows where 5 different talkaing heads all agreed that the G5 needed to start their own playoff because they have absolutely no chance to be in the CFP after seeing UCF finish unbeaten at #12. I think when you can win all your games and cant crack the top 10--the system is being administrated in such a way that half the teams cant get in the playoff. There is nothing in the CFP agreement about only being eligible if you play a full P5 schedule. Thats an administrative decision created by selection committee--which is all appointed by the P5. Do we really think UCF would be at #12 if half the committee was G5? Of course not.

The current system isnt that bad for the G5. It just needs to be tweaked. Balance the committee with equal G5/P5 representation--and it would be fine. I have no doubt that the top 4 would continue to be dominated by the P5 and G5 playoff appearances would be EXTREMELY rare. However, I also have no doubt that when deserved--a G5 would get a fair shake by such a committee. Thats not happening now.

(12-14-2017 04:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 04:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I cant believe the G5 commissioners would even consider it--but apparently they did discuss it a bit before discarding it as essentially impossible at this time.


Brett McMurphy‏Verified account
@Brett_McMurphy
8h8 hours ago
More
Sun Belt’s Karl Benson tells @GregMcElroy Group of 5 commissioners have had “some casual conversations (about a Group of 5 playoff), nothing serious because we’re under contract w/@CFBPlayoff ... but right now everyone is happy where we are”

Karl Benson. Explains it!

Yeah, it is a terrible idea that will never happen. McMurphy and Benson says all you need to know.

(12-18-2017 09:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:20 AM)panama Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:48 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:08 PM)panama Wrote:  We are still talking playoff outside of the CFP?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I never was, and withdrawing from the bowl system en masse seems like willfully reading that information in the least practical way possible. Taking the four conference winners that didn't get the access bowl and setting them up in a two-round postseason playoff basically amounts to finagling your bowl commitments and adding a single game to the post season schedule - far, far easier than forming a new division and thus almost certainly what was discussed.

...briefly

...as in hey you who bought this up, SHUT UP! And when does lunch arrive?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I'd wager money that the CFP contract expressly prohibits any competing postseason tournament-style arrangements, which would shut those talks down pretty quickly. None of this really refutes the fact that the G5 is desperate for revenue, though.

I think you have it wrong. I know my school wants no part of this. My guess is the majority do not. Houston just spent a pretty penny on upgrades. They are not going to be relegated to second class voluntarily. This is not a supposition. UCF and likely all of the AAC and MWC feel the same. Our stadium and athletics facility plan plus residential retail will be a half billion plan when completed. We are not doing that to be Division II. And most G5 programs are not as cash pour as you say.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(12-18-2017 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 08:34 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I think we all know what the end-game is here: the "g" conferences will be consolidated with (at least the "upper" 2/3 of) the FCS. That's the end-game. Then the CFP can expand to 8 or whatever with no issues.

This idea of a "g5 'playoff'" is just a way to hasten and facilitate that process.

As a fan of an AAC program, I want no part of it.

Even as a fan of a MAC program, I want no part of it. If we need to play another game against a P5 school for the money, we should do it. That would be way more money than we'll ever get from a G5 playoff.

And as for the earlier comment about the networks not causing the perception difference between P5 and G5, the announcers on the network sure do their best to downplay the importance of any G5 games.

To be fair, the announcers are seeing what everyone else is seeing. The current design of the system with a rigged selection committee filled to brim with all P5 representatives will never select a G5 as top 10 team---much less a top 4. The fact that is so obvious to any professional observer of the sport doesnt bode well for the CFP should it ever be taken to court over the antitrust issues. Frankly, I think the CFP is more vulnerable to breach of contract, fraud, and/or misrepresentation than to anti-trust. The system isnt specifically anti-competitive--however, the use of the committee to essentially utilize of criteria that clearly automatically bars all G5 teams from selection before the first snap of the season essentially is designed to undermine the spirit of the CFP agreement. I dont think anyone is planning a lawsuit-but I suspect the G5 would have a pretty good chance of winning.

All of the G5 conferences signed the CFP agreement, including the makeup of the CFP, so who are they going to sue, themselves?

There was never any guarantee that the CFP committee was going to choose teams for the playoffs that any particular conferences approved of.

(12-18-2017 03:12 PM)panama Wrote:  I think you have it wrong. I know my school wants no part of this. My guess is the majority do not. Houston just spent a pretty penny on upgrades. They are not going to be relegated to second class voluntarily. This is not a supposition. UCF and likely all of the AAC and MWC feel the same. Our stadium and athletics facility plan plus residential retail will be a half billion plan when completed. We are not doing that to be Division II. And most G5 programs are not as cash pour as you say.

1) Again, you're way overthinking things - if any one or two schools were genuinely pushing the idea that the G5 should withdraw from the bowl system as a whole, play the monied schools sparingly or not at all, and set up a 4 or 5 round playoff to determine a national champion then the mechanism already exists for them to achieve that - move to FCS. Any talk of a G5 playoff (which I don't think would be lucrative enough to pursue, fwiw) would simply be a four-team postseason built into the existing postseason structure, the same as the NIT is to the NCAA tournament in basketball. Playing Toledo in a bowl game wouldn't be the end of Georgia State athletics.

2) The G5 is already division 2. Ship's sailed on that one.

(12-18-2017 04:41 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 03:12 PM)panama Wrote:  I think you have it wrong. I know my school wants no part of this. My guess is the majority do not. Houston just spent a pretty penny on upgrades. They are not going to be relegated to second class voluntarily. This is not a supposition. UCF and likely all of the AAC and MWC feel the same. Our stadium and athletics facility plan plus residential retail will be a half billion plan when completed. We are not doing that to be Division II. And most G5 programs are not as cash pour as you say.

1) Again, you're way overthinking things - if any one or two schools were genuinely pushing the idea that the G5 should withdraw from the bowl system as a whole, play the monied schools sparingly or not at all, and set up a 4 or 5 round playoff to determine a national champion then the mechanism already exists for them to achieve that - move to FCS. Any talk of a G5 playoff (which I don't think would be lucrative enough to pursue, fwiw) would simply be a four-team postseason built into the existing postseason structure, the same as the NIT is to the NCAA tournament in basketball. Playing Toledo in a bowl game wouldn't be the end of Georgia State athletics.

2) The G5 is already division 2. Ship's sailed on that one.

I agree, but there is no reason for us to drink the hemlock and do the dirty work for them.

Like I said, the end-game is to consolidate the FCS and the "g" conferences. If we were going to concede the point, there would be no need to create a "G5 playoff" (whatever the hell that is); we would fold the tent and re-designate as FCS.

Screw that.

(12-18-2017 03:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 08:34 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I think we all know what the end-game is here: the "g" conferences will be consolidated with (at least the "upper" 2/3 of) the FCS. That's the end-game. Then the CFP can expand to 8 or whatever with no issues.

This idea of a "g5 'playoff'" is just a way to hasten and facilitate that process.

As a fan of an AAC program, I want no part of it.

Even as a fan of a MAC program, I want no part of it. If we need to play another game against a P5 school for the money, we should do it. That would be way more money than we'll ever get from a G5 playoff.

And as for the earlier comment about the networks not causing the perception difference between P5 and G5, the announcers on the network sure do their best to downplay the importance of any G5 games.

To be fair, the announcers are seeing what everyone else is seeing. The current design of the system with a rigged selection committee filled to brim with all P5 representatives will never select a G5 as top 10 team---much less a top 4. The fact that is so obvious to any professional observer of the sport doesnt bode well for the CFP should it ever be taken to court over the antitrust issues. Frankly, I think the CFP is more vulnerable to breach of contract, fraud, and/or misrepresentation than to anti-trust. The system isnt specifically anti-competitive--however, the use of the committee to essentially utilize of criteria that clearly automatically bars all G5 teams from selection before the first snap of the season essentially is designed to undermine the spirit of the CFP agreement. I dont think anyone is planning a lawsuit-but I suspect the G5 would have a pretty good chance of winning.

All of the G5 conferences signed the CFP agreement, including the makeup of the CFP, so who are they going to sue, themselves?

There was never any guarantee that the CFP committee was going to choose teams for the playoffs that any particular conferences approved of.

Partners sue each other all the time. Share holders sue thier own company every day. Nothing unusual at all. Essentially, it’s a legal remedy over the contract that binds them. Is the deal being administered in a way that violates the fundamental access the document claims to provide. I think they have a good case—but it’s a last resort type of thing likely reserved for a split scenario.

Bogg is right, any G5 playoff would be 4 teams, two existing bowl games (which would be upgraded by this) and a Championship game.

A 4 team playoff would only require one additional bowl game. Likely played the first week of January. The same selection committee doing the current Playoff would select the G5 schools, with very similar selection criteria.

It could happen if it brings more money to the G5 than the current NY6 access. Would two upgraded bowl games, and a Championship game significantly out revenue that NY6 spot? If it does, since a playoff would distribute the money more evenly among the conferences, rather than a Jackpot for the winner system (which has bounced around from conference to conference ... I am predicting CUSA will get it next year), it could happen. The AAC failing to hit the jackpot next year would probably increase momentum, as I see them as the most likely holdout ... and that assumes others are for it, which I am not convinced.

I guess we'll also see how this all shakes out with the plethora of TV contracts to be renewed.

If there a G5 playoff that is going to happen, the I think the G5 needs to invite the FCS schools that are the state flagships and land grant universities. The future growth of the population of the states like Montana, North and South Dakota, Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island expands that base. (adding Montana, Montana St, ND, NDSU, SD, SDSU, Maine, NH, Del and RI)

In addition, inviting other FCS schools that are large like UC-Davis and Sac. St., Illinois St, Missouri St., Portland St, Idaho St. and James Madison.
This will give a larger population fan base and that continued growing fan base to provide interest in the G5 playoff and have around 80 schools give or take in this level. It still won't be P5 level $$ because face it, the P5 are 80% state flagships and land-grant schools in populated areas. The G5 with at least the rest of the flagship and land-grant schools along with the larger Metro schools could provide a bit more money and fan interest than the current setup.

If its around 80 schools then you could organized 8 ten team conferences. Top four champs to the playoffs, the other 4 champs in a bowl game. Still will have the bowl system for the other schools. Unless going to a 8 team playoff would be better...which I think would be great and then have the rest of the schools eligible still play in bowls.

(12-18-2017 05:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 03:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 08:34 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I think we all know what the end-game is here: the "g" conferences will be consolidated with (at least the "upper" 2/3 of) the FCS. That's the end-game. Then the CFP can expand to 8 or whatever with no issues.

This idea of a "g5 'playoff'" is just a way to hasten and facilitate that process.

As a fan of an AAC program, I want no part of it.

Even as a fan of a MAC program, I want no part of it. If we need to play another game against a P5 school for the money, we should do it. That would be way more money than we'll ever get from a G5 playoff.

And as for the earlier comment about the networks not causing the perception difference between P5 and G5, the announcers on the network sure do their best to downplay the importance of any G5 games.

To be fair, the announcers are seeing what everyone else is seeing. The current design of the system with a rigged selection committee filled to brim with all P5 representatives will never select a G5 as top 10 team---much less a top 4. The fact that is so obvious to any professional observer of the sport doesnt bode well for the CFP should it ever be taken to court over the antitrust issues. Frankly, I think the CFP is more vulnerable to breach of contract, fraud, and/or misrepresentation than to anti-trust. The system isnt specifically anti-competitive--however, the use of the committee to essentially utilize of criteria that clearly automatically bars all G5 teams from selection before the first snap of the season essentially is designed to undermine the spirit of the CFP agreement. I dont think anyone is planning a lawsuit-but I suspect the G5 would have a pretty good chance of winning.

All of the G5 conferences signed the CFP agreement, including the makeup of the CFP, so who are they going to sue, themselves?

There was never any guarantee that the CFP committee was going to choose teams for the playoffs that any particular conferences approved of.

Partners sue each other all the time. Share holders sue thier own company every day. Nothing unusual at all. Essentially, it’s a legal remedy over the contract that binds them. Is the deal being administered in a way that violates the fundamental access the document claims to provide. I think they have a good case—but it’s a last resort type of thing likely reserved for a split scenario.

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.

(12-18-2017 04:41 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 03:12 PM)panama Wrote:  I think you have it wrong. I know my school wants no part of this. My guess is the majority do not. Houston just spent a pretty penny on upgrades. They are not going to be relegated to second class voluntarily. This is not a supposition. UCF and likely all of the AAC and MWC feel the same. Our stadium and athletics facility plan plus residential retail will be a half billion plan when completed. We are not doing that to be Division II. And most G5 programs are not as cash pour as you say.

1) Again, you're way overthinking things - if any one or two schools were genuinely pushing the idea that the G5 should withdraw from the bowl system as a whole, play the monied schools sparingly or not at all, and set up a 4 or 5 round playoff to determine a national champion then the mechanism already exists for them to achieve that - move to FCS. Any talk of a G5 playoff (which I don't think would be lucrative enough to pursue, fwiw) would simply be a four-team postseason built into the existing postseason structure, the same as the NIT is to the NCAA tournament in basketball. Playing Toledo in a bowl game wouldn't be the end of Georgia State athletics.

2) The G5 is already division 2. Ship's sailed on that one.

4 team playoff tournament to what end?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(12-18-2017 08:09 PM)panama Wrote:  4 team playoff tournament to what end?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Keeping in mind I never once argued that they should do this, only that the G5 schools need additional revenue and will look toward non-traditional means to generate it? The idea would be additional money and exposure, but I doubt enough money would be there to make it viable. Seriously though, I wouldn't get all worked up every time someone reports a new idea was kicked around G5 athletic departments, they're going to have to get creative to even pretend to keep up.

(12-18-2017 07:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 05:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 03:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Even as a fan of a MAC program, I want no part of it. If we need to play another game against a P5 school for the money, we should do it. That would be way more money than we'll ever get from a G5 playoff.

And as for the earlier comment about the networks not causing the perception difference between P5 and G5, the announcers on the network sure do their best to downplay the importance of any G5 games.

To be fair, the announcers are seeing what everyone else is seeing. The current design of the system with a rigged selection committee filled to brim with all P5 representatives will never select a G5 as top 10 team---much less a top 4. The fact that is so obvious to any professional observer of the sport doesnt bode well for the CFP should it ever be taken to court over the antitrust issues. Frankly, I think the CFP is more vulnerable to breach of contract, fraud, and/or misrepresentation than to anti-trust. The system isnt specifically anti-competitive--however, the use of the committee to essentially utilize of criteria that clearly automatically bars all G5 teams from selection before the first snap of the season essentially is designed to undermine the spirit of the CFP agreement. I dont think anyone is planning a lawsuit-but I suspect the G5 would have a pretty good chance of winning.

All of the G5 conferences signed the CFP agreement, including the makeup of the CFP, so who are they going to sue, themselves?

There was never any guarantee that the CFP committee was going to choose teams for the playoffs that any particular conferences approved of.

Partners sue each other all the time. Share holders sue thier own company every day. Nothing unusual at all. Essentially, it’s a legal remedy over the contract that binds them. Is the deal being administered in a way that violates the fundamental access the document claims to provide. I think they have a good case—but it’s a last resort type of thing likely reserved for a split scenario.

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.

Things will quickly change in the future. Look at where some of the lawmakers are from in many states? Many of them did not came from P5 schools. They could start raising a stink with anti-trust suits against the NCAA. I am surprise no politician have not raised a stink this year with UCF not getting into the playoffs. People forget most of these are government run schools. Lawmakers could pull funding away from the P5 schools if they are not more inclusive. The lawmakers could make changes with these P5 schools. They could break up the P5 cartel, and create conferences by region with FBS, FCS,1-AAA and D2 schools in the mix, and throw out all the P5 rules as being against competition. P5 is having a monopoly on this whole issue. I would like to see the government outlaw the P5 from receiving more money than other schools and they much share the money equally from tv contracts with the FCS, G5, D2, D3 and NAIA schools they play.