(05-20-2021 03:17 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 02:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 01:21 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 11:35 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  You note "there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom." Many fans of AAC programs make the same argument when they compare the AAC to the Pac-12.

The "real difference" is in resources (fan bases, budgets, coaches salaries, TV contract, etc.). In that respect, the AAC is superior to the Sun Belt just as the Pac-12 is superior to the AAC.

So much of college football "power" is about resources and not on the field results. It's unfair in some respects. But it's the reality.

And that is why some AAC fans don't want a play-in game. They feel the American has earned its perceived status as the "best of the G5" (in terms of a combo of resources and results) and, as such, is worthy of any preferential treatment it might receive.

I am a fan of Cincinnati, Memphis and Middle Tennessee State, so I try to stay neutral in the "AAC vs. other four G5 debate." I respect the Belt in football. A very good league.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league voted in favor of a play in game. The CFP committee ranks teams using the same criteria. Not sure I can wrap my head around the premise that they can evaluate the P5, but not the G5? Adding I haven't heard any G5 commish cede ground to the AAC, and it seems like an undo burden from a prep/rest perspective. Would a head to head will result in much difference? Seems like it unduly hinders the higher rated school...from whichever conference.

I'd be surprised if any G5 league other than the AAC opposed a play-in game. It just gives everyone a lot more chances to get in.

And if we accept that the CFP ranks teams based on the same criteria, then there's no need for a G5 autobid at all. To my understanding, the justification for a G5 autobid is that the there is some kind of systemic preference that works against G5 teams compared to P5 teams, such that a good G5 team just is very unlikely to get a "fair" ranking by comparison with P5 teams.

Now, I don't believe that at all, which is why I oppose autobids for anyone, but if that's the logic in play, then IMO it makes sense to apply it within the G5 as well. In this case, if the CFP has a preference for AAC teams over other G5, which I think it does *if* we are going to use the same kind of evidence cited to support the idea that the CFP process is biased against the G5 generally vs the P5, then it makes sense to ameliorate that by a play-in game. That would also increase opportunities for AAC teams too, btw, as if there had been such a setup during the past seven years of the CFP, the two times a team from another conference was selected for the NY6 spot, an AAC team would have been able to face them for that spot had a play-in existed.

Personally, I'm okay with no autobids with the caveat the conference champs ranking top 6- 8...whatever number get in (which I think would have broad support). I just don't think there is some outcry within the G5. Each commish can be found stating that if one of their teams does what they are supposed to do, they are in.

Personally, I think you're dead wrong. If they set the Playoffs to 8 teams with no Autobids, you can bet that not one G5 school will be ranked above 10th ever. It's just that simple. Those whom have power do not relinquish it willingly and the Rich do not share their wealth.

Really.

. As a Cincinnati and AAC fan I am fine with 5-1-2, with an extra play in for a second non Autonomous team. But it can't be mandated Non autonomous champ 1 vs non Autonomous champion champ 2. It must be the play in game is between the lowest of the 8 teams playing the 2nd non Autonomous team.

Or better yet would be 5-2-2 with the lowest 2 of the 9 playing in. That way it might just be the 2 non champs, could be a bad PAC champ vs a team that upsets a favorite in a P5 championship game

(05-21-2021 09:19 PM)spenser Wrote:  As a Cincinnati and AAC fan I am fine with 5-1-2, with an extra play in for a second non Autonomous team. But it can't be mandated Non autonomous champ 1 vs non Autonomous champion champ 2. It must be the play in game is between the lowest of the 8 teams playing the 2nd non Autonomous team. ...

"can't be" and "must be" in what sense ... in order for you to be fine with it, or there's no path to it being established as a best of Go5?

Another play-in option with more spice for the AAC, if it genuinely believes itself to be a step above it's other four negotiating group partners, would be the best Go5 champion and the best remaining available non-autonomy school.

And of course, the play-in option that the media partners might prefer would be the best Go5 champion and the best available (after the two at-large teams) of non-Autonomy-conference teams. Not only does that open a path for Notre Dame when it is not one of the two at-large's, it also opens the path for BYU and Liberty without BYU having to admit it is not a P5 level school (that is, while Utah IS a P5 level school).

However, it may be that the AAC Universities (as opposed to AAC fans) would prefer a fall-back entry for their champion into the play-in game in years that the AAC does NOT have the best Go5 champion over the open possibility of an all-AAC play-in game.

____________________________

(05-20-2021 02:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Personally, I'm okay with no autobids with the caveat the conference champs ranking top 6- 8...whatever number get in (which I think would have broad support). I just don't think there is some outcry within the G5. Each commish can be found stating that if one of their teams does what they are supposed to do, they are in.

The bargaining leverage comes if the P5 wants a spot for each conference champ. A spot for each P5 champion while half of FBS does not have a similar path is the proposal the Go5 would have both the strongest incentive to oppose as well as would be the one they would be the most likely to able to stall at the stage of the process where the NCAA approves an extra post-season game.

If it's all at-large, then there's a lot less leverage. It would be procedurally fair, even if it sets an invisible glass ceiling at #9 for the committee final ranking of Go5 schools.

So while the Go5 champions are probably screwed as far as getting into the playoffs if there is an at-large 8, it's not likely they would be able to get a guaranteed CFP spot in that situation.

(05-21-2021 10:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-21-2021 09:19 PM)spenser Wrote:  As a Cincinnati and AAC fan I am fine with 5-1-2, with an extra play in for a second non Autonomous team. But it can't be mandated Non autonomous champ 1 vs non Autonomous champion champ 2. It must be the play in game is between the lowest of the 8 teams playing the 2nd non Autonomous team. ...

"can't be" and "must be" in what sense ... in order for you to be fine with it, or there's no path to it being established as a best of Go5?

Another play-in option with more spice for the AAC, if it genuinely believes itself to be a step above it's other four negotiating group partners, would be the best Go5 champion and the best remaining available non-autonomy school.

And of course, the play-in option that the media partners might prefer would be the best Go5 champion and the best available (after the two at-large teams) of non-Autonomy-conference teams. Not only does that open a path for Notre Dame when it is not one of the two at-large's, it also opens the path for BYU and Liberty without BYU having to admit it is not a P5 level school (that is, while Utah IS a P5 level school).

However, it may be that the AAC Universities (as opposed to AAC fans) would prefer a fall-back entry for their champion into the play-in game in years that the AAC does NOT have the best Go5 champion over the open possibility of an all-AAC play-in game.

____________________________

(05-20-2021 02:03 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Personally, I'm okay with no autobids with the caveat the conference champs ranking top 6- 8...whatever number get in (which I think would have broad support). I just don't think there is some outcry within the G5. Each commish can be found stating that if one of their teams does what they are supposed to do, they are in.

The bargaining leverage comes if the P5 wants a spot for each conference champ. A spot for each P5 champion while half of FBS does not have a similar path is the proposal the Go5 would have both the strongest incentive to oppose as well as would be the one they would be the most likely to able to stall at the stage of the process where the NCAA approves an extra post-season game.

If it's all at-large, then there's a lot less leverage. It would be procedurally fair, even if it sets an invisible glass ceiling at #9 for the committee final ranking of Go5 schools.

So while the Go5 champions are probably screwed as far as getting into the playoffs if there is an at-large 8, it's not likely they would be able to get a guaranteed CFP spot in that situation.

As in cant be G5 champion1 vs. G5 champion 2 every season. If those are the 8th and 9 th ranked teams to make it then ok that year.

But it should be G5 Champion #2 vs whoever the 8th ranked among a 5-1-2 would be. So some years it would be the lower ranked At-Large and on most years the PAC Champion vs G5 2.

Then I said it would be even better if it was 5-2-2 with being 8th vs 9th in that system. Not much difference with rare chance of be the 2 Atlarges facing off or a team that knocks off a favorite in P5 Championship game playing the #8.

(05-22-2021 07:26 AM)spenser Wrote:  But it should be G5 Champion #2 vs whoever the 8th ranked among a 5-1-2 would be. So some years it would be the lower ranked At-Large and on most years the PAC Champion vs G5 2.

Right there, if TPTB believe that is the likely outcome of "2 Go5 make the 9, there is a #8 vs #9 seed play-in game" you kind of pinned down why it actually "can't be" that.

The media money driver for the "5" is to convert "at least one, maybe two P5 conferences get left out" to to "win it on the field in the CCG". The PAC Champion vs Go5 #2 is not on the bargaining table.

There's actually some media value in having a Go5 play in game before the big games get going, and then the winner gets a "Cinderella" story line which is not much worse than whatever other angle would be used to boost interest in the #1 seed first round game. So while I don't think for a minute they would be pushing it, I reckon that version of additional exposure for Go5 schools is one they wouldn't kick against as hard.

(05-20-2021 04:13 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Where is 5-5-6 as an option? Obviously this is the most fair, but it isn't about fair. 5-1-2 is more likely to happen at this point in time where it only adds one additional game and generally there is a path to the CFP for everyone.

"Fair" isn't the only thing that matters. TV is not likely to want to schedule five playoff games with G5 teams in them. There just isn't much demand for G5 football on TV. That's why the G5 don't have separate autobids to the NY6, and the one bid they do get is the "hot potato" that no NY6 bowl wants, so it is rotated.

Plus, even the "fairness" notion assumes that FBS is "one league", when it has never been conceptualized that way. FBS was created for those conferences that didn't want to participate in an NCAA D1 playoffs. It was never established on the idea that Alabama and San Jose State, Michigan and ECU or Texas and Colorado State are all in the "same competitive league". Nobody has ever thought that. So there's really no need for an all-encompassing playoffs.

(05-22-2021 08:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 04:13 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  Where is 5-5-6 as an option? Obviously this is the most fair, but it isn't about fair. 5-1-2 is more likely to happen at this point in time where it only adds one additional game and generally there is a path to the CFP for everyone.

"Fair" isn't the only thing that matters. TV is not likely to want to schedule five playoff games with G5 teams in them. There just isn't much demand for G5 football on TV. That's why the G5 don't have separate autobids to the NY6, and the one bid they do get is the "hot potato" that no NY6 bowl wants, so it is rotated.

Plus, even the "fairness" notion assumes that FBS is "one league", when it has never been conceptualized that way. FBS was created for those conferences that didn't want to participate in an NCAA D1 playoffs. It was never established on the idea that Alabama and San Jose State, Michigan and ECU or Texas and Colorado State are all in the "same competitive league". Nobody has ever thought that. So there's really no need for an all-encompassing playoffs.

FBS has only existed a relatively short time and it wasnt "created for conference's that didnt want to participate in the NCAA's playoff". Actually, the break between the playoff level of D1 and the bowl level of D1 occurred in the late 1970's and it was less about a playoff and more about money. The idea was to pare down the number of teams getting a full share of the NCAA's deal with ABC. The way it occurred was more about forcing schools out of the top level of football and less about creating a new level "that didnt want to participate in the NCAA playoff". In fact, that 1978 subdivision of D1 is what actually CREATED a NCAA sponsored D1 football playoff. Due to the criteria for staying in the bowl subdivision, most of the school that were moved to AA/FCS were pretty much forced to move there---they didnt really choose to do it.

If the AAC can expand to include the complete best of the rest, and get an autonomy position, I’d say do a 6-1-1 format.

P6-G4-At large

(05-22-2021 07:23 PM)ThunderDent Wrote:  If the AAC can expand to include the complete best of the rest, and get an autonomy position, I’d say do a 6-1-1 format.

P6-G4-At large

Interesting concept. But perhaps the only scenario for this to happen would be for the AAC to add Army and BYU for football only; Boise, San Diego State and Air Force for all sports; and VCU and, say, Saint Louis or Dayton for all sports but football. That is a damn strong 16-teams-in-football and 16-teams-in hoops (and 19 programs overall) conference that would be tough to dismiss as a potential autonomous league given various factors (including having all three military academies).

But the chances of this happening are no greater than the likelihood of Bill Dazzle having his entire man frame shaved, being tattooed with a full-body inking (in the process, taking the body art approach of Rage Against the Machine bassist Tim Commerford to the "highest level") and then wining and dining Halle Berry, who finds the entire process appealing.

(05-22-2021 07:23 PM)ThunderDent Wrote:  If the AAC can expand to include the complete best of the rest, and get an autonomy position, I’d say do a 6-1-1 format.

P6-G4-At large

Never say never and all, but if a locked 6 were on offer, it would either be 6-0-2, 6-1-5 or 6-0-6.

After all, it's not a two-sided negotiation, it's three to four sides (and lots of argie-bargie inside each "side") ... the media partners, the Autonomy schools, the non-Autonomy FBS schools, and in one or more key steps the non-FBS Division 1 schools, who still have some say in how many FB games the CFP can have (though if it's cave or the P5 breakaway, I expect they cave).

One at large for the second best SEC school and one for Notre Dame in a good year is the minimum number of at-large games that the media partners will be willing to sign up for. And they are one of the sides at the table for every step of the negotiations.