(03-04-2018 10:42 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  You know kittenhead I almost feel sorry for p5ers like ken and quo who talk themselves blue in the face about the differences between the p5 and the g5 and how historically horrible g5 sports programs have always been and continue to be horrible and they will gleefully point out that the tv networks pay more money to the p5 because more college football fans watch p5 football which is true but quo and ken will try to stear you away from the truth that ESPN and p5 conferences and NCAA collude to degrade the g5 sports programs so as to further their p5 business model , but kittenhead you and I both know that ken d and quo try as they might can’t save this p5 business model from savage legal action that will result in a 10 FBS playoff and little misled foot soldiers like quo and ken d will be left standing alone with empty coolaid cups of failed propaganda

Right the only program that I can named who have been forced down because of historically poor performance is South Florida which as an inconsequential BCS program was forced out of the power club to make way for Utah, TCU and Louisville who were more deserving of it.

(03-04-2018 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 09:16 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 07:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wow ...

1) What makes you think college football isn't a healthy sport? It brings in far more money than college basketball, even though hoops is run by the 'rational' system you prefer.

E.g., compare NBA to NFL. Top NFL franchise is worth $4.2B, top NBA team is worth $3B. College? Top college football program is worth $1.5B, top college hoops program is worth $346m, a much larger disparity.

There's zero evidence that college football is an unhealthy sport, it is making more money than ever.

2) As explained, there's no rational reason to give (for example) the Sun Belt champion an auto-bid in the playoffs when we know that on average, most years, there will be several P5 teams that didn't win their conference that are clearly better. It would be irrational, in the sense of having a system that is best able to determine who is truly best, to have a system that guarantees G5 conference champ bids but leaves P5 non-champs out.

That's not the case in the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. where yes, in a given year, the NFC East might be better than the AFC West, but over time, it clearly is all even.

And that's because of the nature of the 'leagues'. The NFL is a true league, in that the members themselves tightly control who can be in the league and the standards they have to meet. No city can throw together a football team and then declare to the NFL "Here we are! We got a football team, so you have to let us play with you and compete for the Super Bowl just like the Cowboys"!

But that's FBS. In FBS, a school can self-select to join that "league" by meeting very low attendance and scholarship standards set by the NCAA. That is irrational, no professional league would do that. FBS isn't a 'league' in any rational sense of the term. It's always been just an NCAA category to distinguish schools that want to play bowl games rather than participate in NCAA organized playoffs.

So there's nothing "unsporting" about the current system. It fits the financial and rational realities of college football, and the vast majority of college football fans know this.

There may not be a rational reason to give the Sunbelt Champ a slot, but there is an absolutely rational reason to give the top G5 champ a slot (whoever that may be). My feeling is the best solution is an 8-team playoff with all P5 champs being AQ, the top G5 champ being AQ, and two wild cards chosen by .the Selection Committee, Every team will have a path to the playoff when the season starts. That’s certainly part of a healthy sport.

First, the G5 teams won't have a path to the playoffs when the season starts. You just push the problem of subjective selection down to the G5 level. Who or how will it be determined who the top G5 is? Some kind of committee using RPI, SOS, BCS computers, etc. And the four conference champs that get left out will all gnash their teeths about the unsporting nature of it all.

Second, whether college football is 'unhealthy' depends on point of view. It isn't unhealthy from a P perspective, because the P have the cash and the access. It is from a G perspective, for the same reason.

So if G wants P to change things such that G will be better off in terms of access, money, exposure, etc. there has to be a good reason for P to do so. So far, nobody has shown that reason.

A cartel will never have a good reason to choose not to be a cartel.

You seem to have a strange notion of what a 'cartel' is. Bizarro, actually. Cartel usually implies restraint of trade. But there is nothing about the CFP that restrains trade for G5 members. G5 conferences like the Sun Belt are free to sign their own deals with bowls, TV networks, etc. and there isn't a damn thing the P5 can do about it. If FOX wants to give the Sun Belt $50m per school per year, zero the SEC can do about it. Nothing.

In fact, the only time a court has ever ruled that the college football system was characterized by restraint of trade was when the SCOTUS struck down the NCAA's "we're all one big league!" TV deal structure and freed up each conference to sign its own deal.

You seem to think that high-value conferences should just voluntarily give away some of their money and prestige to low-value conferences because ... why? The goodness of their hearts?

I guess if I start my own burger joint, rather than trying to put me out of business, McDonald's should start giving me money and promote me on their web site to help me grow my business?

You are a weird bird.

No cartel gives up their advantages out of the goodness of their heart.

Your post is all about competing businesses. But we are a single subdivision under shared governance.

P5 wants to be part of the same organization when it allows them to make rules and protects them from actual business competition regs....and fill non-revenue sport schedules....but want to act as a seperate entity when it comes to internal competition. P5 fan talking points reflect that. "We are the same subdivision here are the rules"..."we are essentially not the same subdivision you can't get a playoff slot."

We are either one organization or we are not.

Equal access to playoffs for conference champions is not an outrageous ask. Its normal sports league stuff. The minimum expectation. At some point it should be insisted on or we go our seperate ways.







Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(03-04-2018 10:57 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:33 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 12:55 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  #2

No rational reason except all division/conference champions should be given a playoff spot before all wild cards. Using your logic, the AFC South has been a terrible divisions for years now. Take away it's automatic bid to the NFL playoffs because it's clearly inferior to the AFC North and NFC West. Same for the western conference versus the eastern conference of the NBA.

You see how ridiculous that is? I'm assuming not because the same automated response is coming I presume. Again, in college basketball, the same inequality you speak of exists, yet they find a way to make sure each conference champion gets a bid, even if some are eliminated before the second full round.

College hoops is different, for two reasons. First, the culture of hoops has always been based on an expansive, inclusive tournament. The culture of college football never has been.

Second, by the nature of the sport, hoops can have a huge, 68-team tournament that lets everyone in. They don't have to face the either/or of a Sun Belt champ vs a B1G runner-up, because there is space for both.

Football can't have that, so choices have to be made. And since the ACC runner-up is almost always better than the Sun Belt champ, it is irrational to give the Sun Belt champ an auto-bid and leave the ACC runner-up out. That would *hurt* our ability to derive the best team, not help.

And your NFL example to support your claim is bad, because even if the AFC South is worse than the AFC North for 10 straight years, that's still just by chance, it's not structurally true, and we know the day will come when the AFC South is better. It's like the Patriots have been better than the Dolphins for 17 years now. Still, we know that when Brady and Belichik finally retire, the Fins may very well be better than the Patriots again, as they have in the past. Fundamentally, despite 17 years of Patriots dominance, they are equal.

That's not true of the Sun Belt vs the ACC. The ACC is structurally better than the Sun Belt, it ALWAYS is, without exception. They are categorically unequal, and a system that pretends they are equal is irrational.

Umm, why can't football have that? Why is it irrational? The ACC runner-up had their shot. Make sure you have enough at-large space for the ACC runner up if they're good enough. Problem solved.

And why do we just assume they're better?

We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

You want to be part of the high-powered hyper-competitive super conference that makes all of the money, but you can't accept that you came in second in it and want an East German ice dancing judge or Condoleeza Rice to subjectively say you are better than another conference's champion and give you their slot.

And that makes self-serving sense from the perspective of fans of 2nd place P5 teams.

Would it make you feel better if instead of Condoleeza Rice, we used a bunch of computers created by PhD Mathematicians? The result will be the same - Sun Belt #1 behind ACC #2.

Putting ACC #2 ahead of SB #1 makes sense from any perspective that isn't biased towards the Sun Belt. There is nothing magical about being a "conference champ". E.g., if Troy beats out South Alabama, Georgia Southern, Arkansas State, etc. to win the Sun Belt, that doesn't tell us anything at all about their worthiness to play against teams from the B1G or ACC in a playoff.

Nothing. It's like me saying to you "hey, guess what! I just beat my sister, therefore, you gotta play me too!". Nonsensical.

Truth is, ACC #2 is almost always better than SB #1, so to be rational, any system that has to choose between them should favor ACC #2.

(03-04-2018 11:12 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 09:16 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 01:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There may not be a rational reason to give the Sunbelt Champ a slot, but there is an absolutely rational reason to give the top G5 champ a slot (whoever that may be). My feeling is the best solution is an 8-team playoff with all P5 champs being AQ, the top G5 champ being AQ, and two wild cards chosen by .the Selection Committee, Every team will have a path to the playoff when the season starts. That’s certainly part of a healthy sport.

First, the G5 teams won't have a path to the playoffs when the season starts. You just push the problem of subjective selection down to the G5 level. Who or how will it be determined who the top G5 is? Some kind of committee using RPI, SOS, BCS computers, etc. And the four conference champs that get left out will all gnash their teeths about the unsporting nature of it all.

Second, whether college football is 'unhealthy' depends on point of view. It isn't unhealthy from a P perspective, because the P have the cash and the access. It is from a G perspective, for the same reason.

So if G wants P to change things such that G will be better off in terms of access, money, exposure, etc. there has to be a good reason for P to do so. So far, nobody has shown that reason.

A cartel will never have a good reason to choose not to be a cartel.

You seem to have a strange notion of what a 'cartel' is. Bizarro, actually. Cartel usually implies restraint of trade. But there is nothing about the CFP that restrains trade for G5 members. G5 conferences like the Sun Belt are free to sign their own deals with bowls, TV networks, etc. and there isn't a damn thing the P5 can do about it. If FOX wants to give the Sun Belt $50m per school per year, zero the SEC can do about it. Nothing.

In fact, the only time a court has ever ruled that the college football system was characterized by restraint of trade was when the SCOTUS struck down the NCAA's "we're all one big league!" TV deal structure and freed up each conference to sign its own deal.

You seem to think that high-value conferences should just voluntarily give away some of their money and prestige to low-value conferences because ... why? The goodness of their hearts?

I guess if I start my own burger joint, rather than trying to put me out of business, McDonald's should start giving me money and promote me on their web site to help me grow my business?

You are a weird bird.

No cartel gives up their advantages out of the goodness of their heart.

Your post is all about competing businesses. But we are a single subdivision under shared governance.

What you continuously miss is that FBS is not and never was designed to be a "league" in that sense that the say the NFL is. It was solely designed to accommodate those schools that did not want to participate in NCAA sponsored football playoffs. That's it, that's all FBS means: We'd rather play bowl games than play in the NCAA sponsored playoffs.

And that's why entry to the FBS is open-ended: Average 15,000 fans a year for two years, and give out 85 (?) football scholarships, and University of Phoenix can call itself "FBS" too.

Would the NFL or NBA or MLB ever have that kind of entry system? Of course not, because the hallmark of an actual league is very tight control over entry, with no automatic entry marks but rather voting by league members case by case or the awarding of league franchises.

In the NFL, the divisions whose champs automatically make the playoffs have zero control over anything, including even their membership. If the NFL wants to move the NY Giants out of the NFC East and move the Miami Dolphins in, they just vote on it and it's done, the division has no say.

In contrast, can the NCAA determine the membership of the SEC or C-USA? Can it vote to move school A from the SEC to the Sun Belt and school B the reverse? Of course not.

That tells you that the NCAA-FBS is in no way a "league" of competitors like the NBA or NFL. It's just an administrative category for bowl-playing teams, and those teams can leave or change their status whenever they want. The actual leagues are the conferences. The SEC is a league, so is the Sun Belt. FBS isn't, obviously.

Heck, if the AFC East wanted to negotiate a separate TV deal for itself, do you think any court would allow it? It would be absurd, because the NFL teams truly are a single league under shared governance, they can dissolve the AFC East any time they want. But the court ruled the opposite when the SEC and Big 8 wanted to sign their own TV deals.

You basically lost the "same league" argument 34 years ago. Sorry about that.

(03-04-2018 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:12 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 09:16 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, the G5 teams won't have a path to the playoffs when the season starts. You just push the problem of subjective selection down to the G5 level. Who or how will it be determined who the top G5 is? Some kind of committee using RPI, SOS, BCS computers, etc. And the four conference champs that get left out will all gnash their teeths about the unsporting nature of it all.

Second, whether college football is 'unhealthy' depends on point of view. It isn't unhealthy from a P perspective, because the P have the cash and the access. It is from a G perspective, for the same reason.

So if G wants P to change things such that G will be better off in terms of access, money, exposure, etc. there has to be a good reason for P to do so. So far, nobody has shown that reason.

A cartel will never have a good reason to choose not to be a cartel.

You seem to have a strange notion of what a 'cartel' is. Bizarro, actually. Cartel usually implies restraint of trade. But there is nothing about the CFP that restrains trade for G5 members. G5 conferences like the Sun Belt are free to sign their own deals with bowls, TV networks, etc. and there isn't a damn thing the P5 can do about it. If FOX wants to give the Sun Belt $50m per school per year, zero the SEC can do about it. Nothing.

In fact, the only time a court has ever ruled that the college football system was characterized by restraint of trade was when the SCOTUS struck down the NCAA's "we're all one big league!" TV deal structure and freed up each conference to sign its own deal.

You seem to think that high-value conferences should just voluntarily give away some of their money and prestige to low-value conferences because ... why? The goodness of their hearts?

I guess if I start my own burger joint, rather than trying to put me out of business, McDonald's should start giving me money and promote me on their web site to help me grow my business?

You are a weird bird.

No cartel gives up their advantages out of the goodness of their heart.

Your post is all about competing businesses. But we are a single subdivision under shared governance.

What you continuously miss is that FBS is not and never was designed to be a "league" in that sense that the say the NFL is. It was solely designed to accommodate those schools that did not want to participate in NCAA sponsored football playoffs. That's it, that's all FBS means: We'd rather play bowl games than play in the NCAA sponsored playoffs.

And that's why entry to the FBS is open-ended: Average 15,000 fans a year for two years, and give out 85 (?) football scholarships, and University of Phoenix can call itself "FBS" too.

Would the NFL or NBA or MLB ever have that kind of entry system? Of course not, because the hallmark of an actual league is very tight control over entry, with no automatic entry marks but rather voting by league members case by case or the awarding of league franchises.

In the NFL, the divisions whose champs automatically make the playoffs have zero control over anything, including even their membership. If the NFL wants to move the NY Giants out of the NFC East and move the Miami Dolphins in, they just vote on it and it's done, the division has no say.

In contrast, can the NCAA determine the membership of the SEC or C-USA? Can it vote to move school A from the SEC to the Sun Belt and school B the reverse? Of course not.

That tells you that the NCAA-FBS is in no way a "league" of competitors like the NBA or NFL. It's just an administrative category for bowl-playing teams, and those teams can leave or change their status whenever they want. The actual leagues are the conferences. The SEC is a league, so is the Sun Belt. FBS isn't, obviously.

Heck, if the AFC East wanted to negotiate a separate TV deal for itself, do you think any court would allow it? It would be absurd, because the NFL teams truly are a single league under shared governance, they can dissolve the AFC East any time they want. But the court ruled the opposite when the SEC and Big 8 wanted to sign their own TV deals.

You basically lost the "same league" argument 34 years ago. Sorry about that.

As I said, you want to be in the same pot when it comes to filling schedules for football and non-revenue sports, making rules and governing. But want to be considered totally seperate when talking about cash and post-season access and things like that.

The best of both worlds.

Just because you want things that way does not make it a rational system. It is a self-serving self-referential argument.

We understand that this is how you want it to be and how it has been. Neither of those are really going to change my views that the system is not a rational or healthy setup for FBS football.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

Nice strawman, I never said anything about a 68-team tournament in football. You and I both know that's not realistically possible. I said why can't we have a tournament that includes all conference champions and at-larges? Why can't we have that?

We will have this, the time for this change is very near, hmmm mybe in 6 years?

(03-04-2018 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:57 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:33 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  College hoops is different, for two reasons. First, the culture of hoops has always been based on an expansive, inclusive tournament. The culture of college football never has been.

Second, by the nature of the sport, hoops can have a huge, 68-team tournament that lets everyone in. They don't have to face the either/or of a Sun Belt champ vs a B1G runner-up, because there is space for both.

Football can't have that, so choices have to be made. And since the ACC runner-up is almost always better than the Sun Belt champ, it is irrational to give the Sun Belt champ an auto-bid and leave the ACC runner-up out. That would *hurt* our ability to derive the best team, not help.

And your NFL example to support your claim is bad, because even if the AFC South is worse than the AFC North for 10 straight years, that's still just by chance, it's not structurally true, and we know the day will come when the AFC South is better. It's like the Patriots have been better than the Dolphins for 17 years now. Still, we know that when Brady and Belichik finally retire, the Fins may very well be better than the Patriots again, as they have in the past. Fundamentally, despite 17 years of Patriots dominance, they are equal.

That's not true of the Sun Belt vs the ACC. The ACC is structurally better than the Sun Belt, it ALWAYS is, without exception. They are categorically unequal, and a system that pretends they are equal is irrational.

Umm, why can't football have that? Why is it irrational? The ACC runner-up had their shot. Make sure you have enough at-large space for the ACC runner up if they're good enough. Problem solved.

And why do we just assume they're better?

We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

You want to be part of the high-powered hyper-competitive super conference that makes all of the money, but you can't accept that you came in second in it and want an East German ice dancing judge or Condoleeza Rice to subjectively say you are better than another conference's champion and give you their slot.

And that makes self-serving sense from the perspective of fans of 2nd place P5 teams.

Would it make you feel better if instead of Condoleeza Rice, we used a bunch of computers created by PhD Mathematicians? The result will be the same - Sun Belt #1 behind ACC #2.

Putting ACC #2 ahead of SB #1 makes sense from any perspective that isn't biased towards the Sun Belt. There is nothing magical about being a "conference champ". E.g., if Troy beats out South Alabama, Georgia Southern, Arkansas State, etc. to win the Sun Belt, that doesn't tell us anything at all about their worthiness to play against teams from the B1G or ACC in a playoff.

Nothing. It's like me saying to you "hey, guess what! I just beat my sister, therefore, you gotta play me too!". Nonsensical.

Truth is, ACC #2 is almost always better than SB #1, so to be rational, any system that has to choose between them should favor ACC #2.

The purpose of the playoff is to annually verify if what we “think is true” really is the case. You assume it’s true—but of course, everyone knew Auburn would destroy UCF. Otherwise. Take a poll at the start of the year and eliminate the games. No reason for all that brain damaging contact and all those injuries when “we already know” who the best team is. There needs to be some sort of access to Playoff from every portion of the division for those "tests" of what we "know" to happen.

Look, if the G5 candidate is so horrible—they will be beaten in the playoff and the outcome is the same—or it’s not. Either way, a crap load of extra eyeballs will now have increased interest in the playoff. Currently, the playoff is a closed invitational with the P5 acting as the doorman. Such a system offers no possible access for half the teams who are I n the division and fails the legitimacy test.

This G5 marketing question reminds me of soccer. The perception of the MLS is that it is several rungs behind the Champions league and behind a raft of European national leagues. Why is that? They have a smaller budget that isn't currently able to attract the level of talent you see in the English, German, Spanish, French, Italian leagues, etc...

The G5 suffers from a very similar resource/brand gap relative to the P5. Is it possible that one day the MLS/G5 is viewed as equal or better? YES. Is that change in perception likely? Not obviously.

It’s a moot point, the p5 has already split off like they wanted to, the good g5 folks need to see this and the they are more clearly every year that this p5 business plan pisses everybody off, this in its self is creating even more fan intrest in the form of out rage, the writing is on the wall plain and simple
The p5 will never give up any advantages that they have now, this I think we can all agree on
The p5 doesn’t want a complete split in fear of losing recruits and tv eyeballs and tv money to a stand alone league That should be on equal scholarships and such
The g5 tv market has room to grow
The g5 will need their own tv package of course, it will be smaller at first but will increase as fan bases grow

(03-04-2018 01:12 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  It’s a moot point, the p5 has already split off like they wanted to, the good g5 folks need to see this and the they are more clearly every year that this p5 business plan pisses everybody off, this in its self is creating even more fan intrest in the form of out rage, the writing is on the wall plain and simple
The p5 will never give up any advantages that they have now, this I think we can all agree on
The p5 doesn’t want a complete split in fear of losing recruits and tv eyeballs and tv money to a stand alone league That should be on equal scholarships and such
The g5 tv market has room to grow
The g5 will need their own tv package of course, it will be smaller at first but will increase as fan bases grow

I dont think a split is the answer.

Every version of the BCS/CFP has featured an improvement in the standing of the G5. The G5 were flat out not part of the original "Bowl Coalition". They were not part of the more developed BCS that later came into being. A situation much like the UCF situation (Tulane) made enough of an impact that a movement began to reform the BCS. That created the "BCS Buster" rules that gave some conditional access to "non-AQ" schools that reached certain rankings.

Despite these reforms--many years, no non-AQ qualified for a BCS slot. In the CFP the performance requirements were removed so that EVERY year the top G5 champ participates in a CFP Bowl.


Basically, the next step is automatic inclusion of the top G5 in the actual playoff. I think that happens when the CFP expands to 8.

The G5 just needs to continue building their fan bases and wait for this CFP deal to end.

There are currently 65 schools in the FBS who are not part of the A5. Notwithstanding the wishes of some of their fans, I really wonder how many of them would voluntarily leave the NCAA with all its perceived faults. For that matter, I wonder how many wish that the A5 schools would leave it.

I doubt it's a majority of them. I'd be surprised if more than 20% would want to leave it. If you told me the number of schools who want out isn't greater than five I would have no trouble believing that. Time and again those schools have reiterated their desire to remain part of the FBS, warts and all. More and more schools are trying to join them, despite the fact that in their current division they are the advantaged ones - the big fish - and they would be going to a division in which they would likely always be the small fish.

All those schools apparently see something that G5 fans clamoring for more inclusion don't. And I think it's safe to assume those schools will ignore that part of their fanbase.

i dont know how anyone could compare G5 to the NBA... the NBA is the very elite of the world of pro basketball. They are what would be if you took only the top teams from the P5 and made a conference out of that. The G5 is like the European basketball league - great talent that has some players that could compete and star in the NBA (i.e. within the G5, has some programs that are every bit as good as the lower P5 members in most years, with a few occasionally that could compete with the top dogs like this year's UCF or that Boise team from a few years ago), but in the eyes of the world, second rate to the NBA. The G5 can market the hell out of themselves, but still will be second class in the NCAA, especially since the top G5 schools are begging for invites into the one P5 conference that is one step away from implosion. That's just how it is - its a money and power thing. P5 are the billionaires of NCAA society, while G5 are the middle class. No amount of marketing will change that perception. That's why the P6 concept is so silly.

(03-04-2018 02:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:12 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  It’s a moot point, the p5 has already split off like they wanted to, the good g5 folks need to see this and the they are more clearly every year that this p5 business plan pisses everybody off, this in its self is creating even more fan intrest in the form of out rage, the writing is on the wall plain and simple
The p5 will never give up any advantages that they have now, this I think we can all agree on
The p5 doesn’t want a complete split in fear of losing recruits and tv eyeballs and tv money to a stand alone league That should be on equal scholarships and such
The g5 tv market has room to grow
The g5 will need their own tv package of course, it will be smaller at first but will increase as fan bases grow

I dont think a split is the answer.

Every version of the BCS/CFP has featured an improvement in the standing of the G5. The G5 were flat out not part of the original "Bowl Coalition". They were not part of the more developed BCS that later came into being. A situation much like the UCF situation (Tulane) made enough of an impact that a movement began to reform the BCS. That created the "BCS Buster" rules that gave some conditional access to "non-AQ" schools that reached certain rankings.

Despite these reforms--many years, no non-AQ qualified for a BCS slot. In the CFP the performance requirements were removed so that EVERY year the top G5 champ participates in a CFP Bowl.


Basically, the next step is automatic inclusion of the top G5 in the actual playoff. I think that happens when the CFP expands to 8.

The G5 just needs to continue building their fan bases and wait for this CFP deal to end.

I don't want a split. I think it is bad for both parties. But I do want a system where every player can get a National Championship based on winning all of their games, no matter how unlikely it may be for them to actually do it.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(03-04-2018 11:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:12 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 09:16 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  A cartel will never have a good reason to choose not to be a cartel.

You seem to have a strange notion of what a 'cartel' is. Bizarro, actually. Cartel usually implies restraint of trade. But there is nothing about the CFP that restrains trade for G5 members. G5 conferences like the Sun Belt are free to sign their own deals with bowls, TV networks, etc. and there isn't a damn thing the P5 can do about it. If FOX wants to give the Sun Belt $50m per school per year, zero the SEC can do about it. Nothing.

In fact, the only time a court has ever ruled that the college football system was characterized by restraint of trade was when the SCOTUS struck down the NCAA's "we're all one big league!" TV deal structure and freed up each conference to sign its own deal.

You seem to think that high-value conferences should just voluntarily give away some of their money and prestige to low-value conferences because ... why? The goodness of their hearts?

I guess if I start my own burger joint, rather than trying to put me out of business, McDonald's should start giving me money and promote me on their web site to help me grow my business?

You are a weird bird.

No cartel gives up their advantages out of the goodness of their heart.

Your post is all about competing businesses. But we are a single subdivision under shared governance.

What you continuously miss is that FBS is not and never was designed to be a "league" in that sense that the say the NFL is. It was solely designed to accommodate those schools that did not want to participate in NCAA sponsored football playoffs. That's it, that's all FBS means: We'd rather play bowl games than play in the NCAA sponsored playoffs.

And that's why entry to the FBS is open-ended: Average 15,000 fans a year for two years, and give out 85 (?) football scholarships, and University of Phoenix can call itself "FBS" too.

Would the NFL or NBA or MLB ever have that kind of entry system? Of course not, because the hallmark of an actual league is very tight control over entry, with no automatic entry marks but rather voting by league members case by case or the awarding of league franchises.

In the NFL, the divisions whose champs automatically make the playoffs have zero control over anything, including even their membership. If the NFL wants to move the NY Giants out of the NFC East and move the Miami Dolphins in, they just vote on it and it's done, the division has no say.

In contrast, can the NCAA determine the membership of the SEC or C-USA? Can it vote to move school A from the SEC to the Sun Belt and school B the reverse? Of course not.

That tells you that the NCAA-FBS is in no way a "league" of competitors like the NBA or NFL. It's just an administrative category for bowl-playing teams, and those teams can leave or change their status whenever they want. The actual leagues are the conferences. The SEC is a league, so is the Sun Belt. FBS isn't, obviously.

Heck, if the AFC East wanted to negotiate a separate TV deal for itself, do you think any court would allow it? It would be absurd, because the NFL teams truly are a single league under shared governance, they can dissolve the AFC East any time they want. But the court ruled the opposite when the SEC and Big 8 wanted to sign their own TV deals.

You basically lost the "same league" argument 34 years ago. Sorry about that.

As I said, you want to be in the same pot when it comes to filling schedules for football and non-revenue sports, making rules and governing. But want to be considered totally seperate when talking about cash and post-season access and things like that.

The best of both worlds.

Just because you want things that way does not make it a rational system. It is a self-serving self-referential argument.

We understand that this is how you want it to be and how it has been. Neither of those are really going to change my views that the system is not a rational or healthy setup for FBS football.

Don't confuse P5 "indifference" about G5 clinging to the same pot with the P5 in some areas with "want". Nobody in the P5 cares whether the G5 conferences are in the 'same pot' for scheduling or making rules or governing or any of that or not. Most P5 would probably like to break away, that's what 'autonomy' was trying to mimic, and nobody would object if the G5 decided to break away and form its own division, inside or outside of the NCAA. That's important.

Your views on cash and playoff access have been shown to be irrational, and shown to be based on a selfish/self-interested desire for ARK-ST to get more stuff without earning it, by piggybacking on the big P5 brands. Cash distribution corresponds to market value, as it should. G5 will get paid more when they build their brands and become more valuable. But you can't expect the P5 to enact welfare policies to do that for you.

There is no FBS football 'league', so there is no necessary basis for a playoff system that includes champs from all FBS conferences. But even if it was, money ultimately drives playoff structure, in all leagues. E.g., when the NFL adds wild-card rounds, it's not because it is rational, it's because TV offers more money.

When it becomes clear that an 8-team playoff will make more money than the CFP, we will get an 8-team playoff.

(03-05-2018 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:12 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You seem to have a strange notion of what a 'cartel' is. Bizarro, actually. Cartel usually implies restraint of trade. But there is nothing about the CFP that restrains trade for G5 members. G5 conferences like the Sun Belt are free to sign their own deals with bowls, TV networks, etc. and there isn't a damn thing the P5 can do about it. If FOX wants to give the Sun Belt $50m per school per year, zero the SEC can do about it. Nothing.

In fact, the only time a court has ever ruled that the college football system was characterized by restraint of trade was when the SCOTUS struck down the NCAA's "we're all one big league!" TV deal structure and freed up each conference to sign its own deal.

You seem to think that high-value conferences should just voluntarily give away some of their money and prestige to low-value conferences because ... why? The goodness of their hearts?

I guess if I start my own burger joint, rather than trying to put me out of business, McDonald's should start giving me money and promote me on their web site to help me grow my business?

You are a weird bird.

No cartel gives up their advantages out of the goodness of their heart.

Your post is all about competing businesses. But we are a single subdivision under shared governance.

What you continuously miss is that FBS is not and never was designed to be a "league" in that sense that the say the NFL is. It was solely designed to accommodate those schools that did not want to participate in NCAA sponsored football playoffs. That's it, that's all FBS means: We'd rather play bowl games than play in the NCAA sponsored playoffs.

And that's why entry to the FBS is open-ended: Average 15,000 fans a year for two years, and give out 85 (?) football scholarships, and University of Phoenix can call itself "FBS" too.

Would the NFL or NBA or MLB ever have that kind of entry system? Of course not, because the hallmark of an actual league is very tight control over entry, with no automatic entry marks but rather voting by league members case by case or the awarding of league franchises.

In the NFL, the divisions whose champs automatically make the playoffs have zero control over anything, including even their membership. If the NFL wants to move the NY Giants out of the NFC East and move the Miami Dolphins in, they just vote on it and it's done, the division has no say.

In contrast, can the NCAA determine the membership of the SEC or C-USA? Can it vote to move school A from the SEC to the Sun Belt and school B the reverse? Of course not.

That tells you that the NCAA-FBS is in no way a "league" of competitors like the NBA or NFL. It's just an administrative category for bowl-playing teams, and those teams can leave or change their status whenever they want. The actual leagues are the conferences. The SEC is a league, so is the Sun Belt. FBS isn't, obviously.

Heck, if the AFC East wanted to negotiate a separate TV deal for itself, do you think any court would allow it? It would be absurd, because the NFL teams truly are a single league under shared governance, they can dissolve the AFC East any time they want. But the court ruled the opposite when the SEC and Big 8 wanted to sign their own TV deals.

You basically lost the "same league" argument 34 years ago. Sorry about that.

As I said, you want to be in the same pot when it comes to filling schedules for football and non-revenue sports, making rules and governing. But want to be considered totally seperate when talking about cash and post-season access and things like that.

The best of both worlds.

Just because you want things that way does not make it a rational system. It is a self-serving self-referential argument.

We understand that this is how you want it to be and how it has been. Neither of those are really going to change my views that the system is not a rational or healthy setup for FBS football.

Don't confuse P5 "indifference" about G5 clinging to the same pot with the P5 in some areas with "want". Nobody in the P5 cares whether the G5 conferences are in the 'same pot' for scheduling or making rules or governing or any of that or not. Most P5 would probably like to break away, that's what 'autonomy' was trying to mimic, and nobody would object if the G5 decided to break away and form its own division, inside or outside of the NCAA. That's important.

Your views on cash and playoff access have been shown to be irrational, and shown to be based on a selfish/self-interested desire for ARK-ST to get more stuff without earning it, by piggybacking on the big P5 brands. Cash distribution corresponds to market value, as it should. G5 will get paid more when they build their brands and become more valuable. But you can't expect the P5 to enact welfare policies to do that for you.

There is no FBS football 'league', so there is no necessary basis for a playoff system that includes champs from all FBS conferences. But even if it was, money ultimately drives playoff structure, in all leagues. E.g., when the NFL adds wild-card rounds, it's not because it is rational, it's because TV offers more money.

When it becomes clear that an 8-team playoff will make more money than the CFP, we will get an 8-team playoff.

This is tiresome. I've countered these arguments multiple times in this thread. You just ignore and keep repeating your mantra. Which is no debate at all.

If you are interested in my responses, go back and read the other 10 times I replied. But you aren't actually interested.

Good luck to you. Fighting to show that this absurd system is good...is a really tough job.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(03-04-2018 12:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

Nice strawman, I never said anything about a 68-team tournament in football. You and I both know that's not realistically possible. I said why can't we have a tournament that includes all conference champions and at-larges? Why can't we have that?

No strawman, you just got caught up on my referencing 68 teams when the answer to your question was there as well: including all conference champs is only rational if the playoffs also includes conference non-champs who are at least as likely to win the playoffs as the worst conference champs.

IOW's, it makes no sense to include the Sun Belt champ unless we also include the category of at-large teams that are better.

For football, that probably means a 32-team playoff, as there are probably 20 or so teams each year that don't win their conference that are as good or better than some of the G5 champs.

A 16-team playoff wouldn't work at all, as 5 at larges is far too few.

So a 32-team playoff would do it - accommodate all conference champs while including all at-large with a reasonable chance to win.

BUT, a 32-team playoff would stretch the bounds of feasible, and would require a radical change to the post-season, so we have to look at costs and benefits of doing so.

Competitively, the current CFP is deficient, in that it excludes teams that are 5-8 that could conceivably win the playoffs if included (e.g., Ohio State this year). So the first order of business in expanding the playoffs would be to include those teams, not G5 champs.

(03-04-2018 12:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:57 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:33 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Umm, why can't football have that? Why is it irrational? The ACC runner-up had their shot. Make sure you have enough at-large space for the ACC runner up if they're good enough. Problem solved.

And why do we just assume they're better?

We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

You want to be part of the high-powered hyper-competitive super conference that makes all of the money, but you can't accept that you came in second in it and want an East German ice dancing judge or Condoleeza Rice to subjectively say you are better than another conference's champion and give you their slot.

And that makes self-serving sense from the perspective of fans of 2nd place P5 teams.

Would it make you feel better if instead of Condoleeza Rice, we used a bunch of computers created by PhD Mathematicians? The result will be the same - Sun Belt #1 behind ACC #2.

Putting ACC #2 ahead of SB #1 makes sense from any perspective that isn't biased towards the Sun Belt. There is nothing magical about being a "conference champ". E.g., if Troy beats out South Alabama, Georgia Southern, Arkansas State, etc. to win the Sun Belt, that doesn't tell us anything at all about their worthiness to play against teams from the B1G or ACC in a playoff.

Nothing. It's like me saying to you "hey, guess what! I just beat my sister, therefore, you gotta play me too!". Nonsensical.

Truth is, ACC #2 is almost always better than SB #1, so to be rational, any system that has to choose between them should favor ACC #2.

The purpose of the playoff is to annually verify if what we “think is true” really is the case. You assume it’s true—but of course, everyone knew Auburn would destroy UCF. Otherwise. Take a poll at the start of the year and eliminate the games. No reason for all that brain damaging contact and all those injuries when “we already know” who the best team is. There needs to be some sort of access to Playoff from every portion of the division for those "tests" of what we "know" to happen.

Look, if the G5 candidate is so horrible—they will be beaten in the playoff and the outcome is the same—or it’s not. Either way, a crap load of extra eyeballs will now have increased interest in the playoff. Currently, the playoff is a closed invitational with the P5 acting as the doorman. Such a system offers no possible access for half the teams who are I n the division and fails the legitimacy test.

Problem with this argument is that we can flip the ACC #2 and Sun Belt champs in it and it makes as much sense. E.g., "Look, if the ACC #2 is horrible, if we all mistakenly thought they were a lot better than they really are because of ESPN hype and P5 bias, they will be beaten in the playoff and the outcome is the same - or it's not".

Your mistake is in assuming that (a) FBS is a 'division' in a competitive sense, which it isn't, it's just an administrative category. That's why there is no groundswell for a playoff that includes G5 champs. If for some reason the NFL excluded the AFC South and NFC East champs from the playoffs, that would spark outrage, because the AFC South and NFC East really are a part of the same league as the other divisions. But in football, the true leagues are the conferences, not the "division". And (b), that winning an FBS division somehow proves more than finishing second in another conference does. But it doesn't. As I explained before, if Troy beats out other SB teams for the SB title, that means nothing in terms of their ability or qualifications to beat teams from other conferences. Zero.

So if we had a playoffs that included all conference champs but excluded ACC #2, we'd be doing just as much "assuming" - in this case that SB champ is better than ACC #2 as if we do the reverse.

So we have to make a choice: And all the evidence we have, like SOS, RPI, Sangarin, etc. tells us that that ACC #2 is probably better than SB #1, so it is rational that the system be designed to allow for that choice.

Is it ideal? No, but better than putting us in a a "conference champs" straitjacket.

(03-05-2018 10:02 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:12 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  No cartel gives up their advantages out of the goodness of their heart.

Your post is all about competing businesses. But we are a single subdivision under shared governance.

What you continuously miss is that FBS is not and never was designed to be a "league" in that sense that the say the NFL is. It was solely designed to accommodate those schools that did not want to participate in NCAA sponsored football playoffs. That's it, that's all FBS means: We'd rather play bowl games than play in the NCAA sponsored playoffs.

And that's why entry to the FBS is open-ended: Average 15,000 fans a year for two years, and give out 85 (?) football scholarships, and University of Phoenix can call itself "FBS" too.

Would the NFL or NBA or MLB ever have that kind of entry system? Of course not, because the hallmark of an actual league is very tight control over entry, with no automatic entry marks but rather voting by league members case by case or the awarding of league franchises.

In the NFL, the divisions whose champs automatically make the playoffs have zero control over anything, including even their membership. If the NFL wants to move the NY Giants out of the NFC East and move the Miami Dolphins in, they just vote on it and it's done, the division has no say.

In contrast, can the NCAA determine the membership of the SEC or C-USA? Can it vote to move school A from the SEC to the Sun Belt and school B the reverse? Of course not.

That tells you that the NCAA-FBS is in no way a "league" of competitors like the NBA or NFL. It's just an administrative category for bowl-playing teams, and those teams can leave or change their status whenever they want. The actual leagues are the conferences. The SEC is a league, so is the Sun Belt. FBS isn't, obviously.

Heck, if the AFC East wanted to negotiate a separate TV deal for itself, do you think any court would allow it? It would be absurd, because the NFL teams truly are a single league under shared governance, they can dissolve the AFC East any time they want. But the court ruled the opposite when the SEC and Big 8 wanted to sign their own TV deals.

You basically lost the "same league" argument 34 years ago. Sorry about that.

As I said, you want to be in the same pot when it comes to filling schedules for football and non-revenue sports, making rules and governing. But want to be considered totally seperate when talking about cash and post-season access and things like that.

The best of both worlds.

Just because you want things that way does not make it a rational system. It is a self-serving self-referential argument.

We understand that this is how you want it to be and how it has been. Neither of those are really going to change my views that the system is not a rational or healthy setup for FBS football.

Don't confuse P5 "indifference" about G5 clinging to the same pot with the P5 in some areas with "want". Nobody in the P5 cares whether the G5 conferences are in the 'same pot' for scheduling or making rules or governing or any of that or not. Most P5 would probably like to break away, that's what 'autonomy' was trying to mimic, and nobody would object if the G5 decided to break away and form its own division, inside or outside of the NCAA. That's important.

Your views on cash and playoff access have been shown to be irrational, and shown to be based on a selfish/self-interested desire for ARK-ST to get more stuff without earning it, by piggybacking on the big P5 brands. Cash distribution corresponds to market value, as it should. G5 will get paid more when they build their brands and become more valuable. But you can't expect the P5 to enact welfare policies to do that for you.

There is no FBS football 'league', so there is no necessary basis for a playoff system that includes champs from all FBS conferences. But even if it was, money ultimately drives playoff structure, in all leagues. E.g., when the NFL adds wild-card rounds, it's not because it is rational, it's because TV offers more money.

When it becomes clear that an 8-team playoff will make more money than the CFP, we will get an 8-team playoff.

This is tiresome. I've countered these arguments multiple times in this thread. You just ignore and keep repeating your mantra.

It's tiresome, because you are close-minded, or at least blinded by your sense of self-interest.

Nobody has repeated any mantra, all of you arguments have been systematically addressed and found lacking.

If that's tiresome to you, too bad.

(03-05-2018 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We can't have a 68-team football tourney because football teams can't play every two days like basketball teams can.

As for "why do we assume ... " for an 8 team playoff, assuming the ACC runner-up is better than the Sun Belt champ isn't an ideal situation, any more than assuming that the ACC runner-up is better than the FCS or D2 champ is. Ideally, all would be in the playoffs.

But since they can't be, we have to make a choice, and it's more likely that the ACC runner-up is better than the SB champ. So it makes no sense to give the SB champ an auto-bid if that keeps the ACC #2 out.

Nice strawman, I never said anything about a 68-team tournament in football. You and I both know that's not realistically possible. I said why can't we have a tournament that includes all conference champions and at-larges? Why can't we have that?

No strawman, you just got caught up on my referencing 68 teams when the answer to your question was there as well: including all conference champs is only rational if the playoffs also includes conference non-champs who are at least as likely to win the playoffs as the worst conference champs.

IOW's, it makes no sense to include the Sun Belt champ unless we also include the category of at-large teams that are better.

For football, that probably means a 32-team playoff, as there are probably 20 or so teams each year that don't win their conference that are as good or better than some of the G5 champs.

A 16-team playoff wouldn't work at all, as 5 at larges is far too few.

So a 32-team playoff would do it - accommodate all conference champs while including all at-large with a reasonable chance to win.

BUT, a 32-team playoff would stretch the bounds of feasible, and would require a radical change to the post-season, so we have to look at costs and benefits of doing so.

Competitively, the current CFP is deficient, in that it excludes teams that are 5-8 that could conceivably win the playoffs if included (e.g., Ohio State this year). So the first order of business in expanding the playoffs would be to include those teams, not G5 champs.

Now your spouting complete gibberish again. “Five is too few at larges”? The current system you’ve defended like your life depended on it only has 4 TOTAL participants. There are reasons a 16 team playoff won’t happen—but too few “at larges” isn’t the reason. Eight with the P5 champs andthe top G5 as an AQ is the best reasonable answer. Not too big, with a viable path for all, plus 2 wildcards to guaranteei that #1 and #2 always get in regardless of upsets in the CCG. The key to me is creating a path where you can win your way into the pla6off without help from the ice skating judges.