Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A different strategy for the G5
Author Message
Minutemen429 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 863
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 37
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #21
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 03:22 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 02:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The G5 are in a very bad spot but its more to do with the classification than anything.

We need to add another rung between FBS and FCS.

What I am suggesting is that the G5 are still part of the FBS and in the classification above FCS as they are now. The rung is between the Autonomous conferences and the FCS.

Right now, in a sense, the G5 programs are more in competition with the FCS schools who are often getting first dibs at the "buy games" with the P5. My suggestion is to supplant those FCS schools with G5 schools, giving the latter better exposure and more money. As for the AAC and MWC, I have proposed elsewhere that the best of these get a legitimate shot at power status by splitting off into a separate football only conference. That's why I said 75 P schools instead of the current 65.

It just sounds like you're demoting the G5 to FCS level and demoting the FCS to a level below FCS. I think everybody in the G5 prefers the current setup to a demotion. Any of the G5 schools can drop to FCS whenever we want.
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2018 05:12 PM by Minutemen429.)
08-01-2018 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,407
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 173
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #22
RE: A different strategy for the G5
Man that’s a lot of info you compiled there
Too much for me to digest over just two beers, gotta go to the store
08-01-2018 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #23
RE: A different strategy for the G5
A playoff for the access spot? I don't know if I'm feeling that. Would it really help recruiting to have a guaranteed road to an access bowl?

I'd rather have a second access bowl for the G5. That would put more programs in play down to the wire each year.
08-01-2018 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,407
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 173
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #24
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 05:10 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:22 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 02:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The G5 are in a very bad spot but its more to do with the classification than anything.

We need to add another rung between FBS and FCS.

What I am suggesting is that the G5 are still part of the FBS and in the classification above FCS as they are now. The rung is between the Autonomous conferences and the FCS.

Right now, in a sense, the G5 programs are more in competition with the FCS schools who are often getting first dibs at the "buy games" with the P5. My suggestion is to supplant those FCS schools with G5 schools, giving the latter better exposure and more money. As for the AAC and MWC, I have proposed elsewhere that the best of these get a legitimate shot at power status by splitting off into a separate football only conference. That's why I said 75 P schools instead of the current 65.

It just sounds like you're demoting the G5 to FCS level and demoting the FCS to a level below FCS. I think everybody in the G5 prefers the current setup to a demotion. Any of the G5 schools can drop to FCS whenever we want.

Minutemen I wouldn’t wast my time responding to these A5 types, all they really want is to be left alone from the g5 fans and teams, most of these A5 fans feel like it’s a slap in the face to have one of there teams have to play a g5 team in the New Year’s Day bowl and then to lose... imagine for a moment that your A5 team is a good team but then you lose a game and that loss then puts you in a bowl against the lowly g5 champion , imo it’s also a left handed compliment for the best g5 team to have to settle playing this A5 team that is now not so important
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2018 05:49 PM by JHS55.)
08-01-2018 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #25
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 04:02 PM)YNot Wrote:  I haven't done it for the last season or two, but I had crunched FBS attendance and TV ratings numbers and came to the conclusion that about 15-20% of FBS college football fans watch the non-P5 schools. It wasn't a scientific study or advanced statistical analysis or anything. So, take that for what it's worth.

But, let's assume that at least 15% of college football fans want to watch non-P5 games. That's not insignificant.

In my opinion, the goals should be:

1) to maximize the value of the 15% who want to watch non-P5 games.

2) to attract some of the other 85% focused on P5 games.

The NY6 bid has done a decent job to give G5 fans something to cheer for. There is guaranteed, annual access to a big bowl game. Much better than the results during the bowl alliance and BCS eras. However, by November there are only a handful of schools from only a couple of G5 conferences with a realistic shot at the NY6 bid. Think about that - it's still in the hands of the CFP Selection Committee.

This is where the G5 playoff proponents have attempted to capture more value from the 15%. Create a system that engages most, if not all, G5 fans towards a common purpose. But, many G5 playoff proposals devalue the NY6 bid and unravel the G5's seat at the table.

One idea I'd like to see considered is to have a G5 playoff for the NY6 bid. Remove the G5 conference championships games - not enough people watch them anyways. Instead, replace with the first round of a the NY6 "Play-In."

Using the CFP selection committee - or some other G5 committee or rankings process - and match the "top eight" G5 teams. Only rules are that each G5 conference gets a team in the field and no G5 conferences gets to host more than two Round 1 Play-In games. May be also include rules to avoid re-matches, to the extent possible.

Round 1 the first weekend of December at home fields. I'd suggest 2 games on Friday night, one after the other, and 2 games on Saturday - one at 12pm ET, before the SEC and B1G championship games and the other at 10:30pm ET, to take exclusive advantage of the late night kickoff window.

Round 2 the following weekend. Front and center, with sole possession of college football TV this weekend. This could either be at higher-seeds' home fields or at a pre-determined site. I like the idea of a double-header at the same venue. This can get fan bases of at least four G5 schools in town...plus, probably a significant number of college football fans in general (including some from the 85% group!).

Round 3 the weekend before Christmas or the week of Christmas (but still before Christmas) at the new NFL stadium in Vegas. Broadcast on ABC or FOX. Winner takes all and gets the NY6 bid. Losers will still be available for bowl selection under the current system.

Here's how it could have looked last year (using CFP and poll rankings - remember, the field is selected before the conference championship games, which are not played in this scenario):

#1 UCF from the AAC. At this point, UCF was ranked #14 by the selection committee and #11/12 in the polls.

#2 Memphis, also from the AAC (the AAC cannot have anyone else in the top-4, which gets to host a Round 1 Play-In game). Memphis was tabbed at #20 in the CFP rankings and #14/16 in the polls.

#3 Fresno St. from the MWC. The selection committee had the Bulldogs at #25 in the CFP rankings. The polls placed Fresno at #25/26.

#4 San Diego St. from the MWC. They aren't ranked by the selection committee, but #25/27 in the polls. They get the home game ahead of #5 South Florida because of the rule against a single G5 conference hosting more than 2 Round 1 games. In this case, the AAC and MWC each get to host 2 Round 1 games.

The remaining seeds go to #6 Toledo (MAC, ranked at #30 in both polls), #7 Troy (Sun Belt, ranked #29/37 in the polls)), and #8 Florida Atlantic (CUSA, ranked #31 in the coaches poll). Boise St. gets left out, despite being ranked ahead of these three. However, it is ESSENTIAL to get all G5 conferences involved in the NY6 Play-In.

Boise St. gets the consolation of playing the Oregon Ducks in their post-season bowl game.

The Round 1 matchups on December 1-2 are:
Friday
6pm ET: (8)FAU at (1)UCF
9:15pm ET: (5)South Florida at (4)San Diego St.

The only football competition is the PAC championship game at 8pm ET.

Saturday:
12pm ET: (7)Troy at (2)Memphis
10:15pm ET: (6)Toledo at (3)Fresno St.

None of the G5 Play-In games competes with another. This schedule also avoids competing with the B1G, SEC, and ACC championship games. The first Saturday game will compete with the Big 12 championship. (I note that the AAC, MAC, and CUSA championship games were all played at the same time last year. The MWC championship and Sun Belt de facto championship - Troy v. Arkansas St. - played at the same time last year).

So, instead of four G5 conference championship games that will get between 200k to 650K viewers and lackluster attendance (the Memphis-UCF OT game got almost 4M viewers), there are four Round 1 Play-In games at home stadiums. The games actually mean something and the results of each game affect the others. So, you get better viewership and attendance for every game. And, because everybody loves elimination games, you will get decent viewership from the 85% of college football fans that normally don't care about G5 conference championship games.

The Round 2 semi-final Play-In games will have the weekend to themselves and should get great TV ratings. Likely UCF v. USF or SDSU and Memphis v. Fresno St. And, all of those teams are likely ranked when they play the Round 2 games.

The Round 3 Play-In final caps the opening weekend of bowl games, likely to draw 3-4M or more viewers.

Flame away, but I see it as a win-win-win-win-win for the G5.

Its not a horrible idea from a marketing standpoint--but you've set it up where the a G5 has to play 2 extra games just to make the playoff. Frankly, I think just making the G5 access slot a playoff slot will do wonders for G5 viewership and recruiting. Its amazing how many folks attend G5 games and watch G5 games on TV considering these teams are excluded from the post season before the first snap of the season has even occurred. What might happen to their attendance and viewership if these conference races actually have significant post season ramifications?
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2018 05:50 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-01-2018 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #26
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 05:10 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:22 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 02:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The G5 are in a very bad spot but its more to do with the classification than anything.

We need to add another rung between FBS and FCS.

What I am suggesting is that the G5 are still part of the FBS and in the classification above FCS as they are now. The rung is between the Autonomous conferences and the FCS.

Right now, in a sense, the G5 programs are more in competition with the FCS schools who are often getting first dibs at the "buy games" with the P5. My suggestion is to supplant those FCS schools with G5 schools, giving the latter better exposure and more money. As for the AAC and MWC, I have proposed elsewhere that the best of these get a legitimate shot at power status by splitting off into a separate football only conference. That's why I said 75 P schools instead of the current 65.

It just sounds like you're demoting the G5 to FCS level and demoting the FCS to a level below FCS. I think everybody in the G5 prefers the current setup to a demotion. Any of the G5 schools can drop to FCS whenever we want.

Thats all it would be--whether it was actually structured that way or not. Right now---both FBS and FCS are D1----but the public perception is that they are not. I'd bet a large number of casual fans (perhaps even a majority) probably think FCS and D2 are the same thing.
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2018 05:51 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-01-2018 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #27
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 03:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 02:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The G5 are in a very bad spot but its more to do with the classification than anything.

We need to add another rung between FBS and FCS.

Its not really needed. Whats needed is a real legitimate access path t the CFP. Do that ---and the G5 will be just fine. It will function as a gigantic conference of smaller schools who's champ will almost always be a very dangerous team that will win more than its fair share of CFP games. I think the eventual 8-team CFP will probably largely fix the issue and make college football a very fun and healthy game with wider appeal than it has ever enjoyed. 04-cheers

I don't see an expanded playoff being real access. If anything, the creation of the Committee over the BCS Computer ensures that.

There is a serious structural issue that can't be resolved, at least not without changing the way teams pick who they play. There is simply too big of a difference on the whole. Money drives the whole boat and with that gap in place there simply will never be parity or equal access.

I've long advocated for assigning schedules at random over allowing schools to pick.

There is a structural issue—but’s the problem is the CFP—not college football. Just require one of 8 playoff slots to be a G5 slot. Simple. The committee has made it clear they are largely incapable of accurately ranking the best of G5 against the best of the P5 (probably because they weight schedule so heavily that they automatically eliminate any team that plays 8-10 G5 foes in a season). The committee does a good job of ranking G5 against other G5’s. So—let them pick the top G5 champ and include them in the playoff. The P5 still ends up with 75% more teams in the playoff with the move to 8. Frankly. I’d prefer that P5 champs be AQ if we go to 8 as well.

Handing out an auto G5 spot just isn't feasible though.

It isn't every season where you will have a G5 team ranked high enough and there will be an instance, without a shadow of a doubt, that it becomes pure charity.

The money made in this sport is not charity.
08-01-2018 06:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sierrajip Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,697
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 187
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #28
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 05:25 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Man that’s a lot of info you compiled there
Too much for me to digest over just two beers, gotta go to the store

Or a toke, depending on where you live.
08-01-2018 06:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,407
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 173
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #29
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 06:03 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 05:25 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Man that’s a lot of info you compiled there
Too much for me to digest over just two beers, gotta go to the store

Or a toke, depending on where you live.
I live in Houston, Iam sure there’s a lot of weed here, gave it up looong time ago
08-01-2018 06:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sierrajip Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,697
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 187
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #30
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 06:09 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 06:03 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 05:25 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Man that’s a lot of info you compiled there
Too much for me to digest over just two beers, gotta go to the store

Or a toke, depending on where you live.
I live in Houston, Iam sure there’s a lot of weed here, gave it up looong time ago

So do I. I gave it up a long time ago too. Dam drug tests 03-cloud9
08-01-2018 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sellular1 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,233
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 186
I Root For: USF
Location: The ATL
Post: #31
RE: A different strategy for the G5
Why stop at football? Tell the G5 they get no access to other sports as well. See how that goes.
08-01-2018 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #32
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 09:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  For most of the schools in the G5, getting promoted to a power conference isn’t a realistic aspiration. Not now, and not for many years to come. It may be an aspiration for some of their fans, but they will just have to be disappointed.

The question those schools must address is why they are playing football in the first place. Then they need to realistically assess whether playing football at their current level is helping them achieve their institutional goals. They need to have measurable results, not just some vague belief that having an FBS football team helps their enrollment or the quality of their applicant pool.

The prevailing wisdom (and I use that term with reservations) is that football is the front porch to the university. But what good is having that front porch if nobody is driving down your street? So, what can the G5 schools do to get more eyeballs driving down their street at a cost they can afford?

One answer may be that they need to act together instead of competing with each other for the title of “tallest midget”. Maybe instead of waiting for the P5 to break away from the NCAA, they should lobby to have themselves placed in a lower division than the P5. And, as part of that lobbying effort, try to get some other rules changes.

First, no longer allow the P5 to count FCS opponents toward bowl eligibility. If there are 75 P5 teams, each wanting to have two home games they don’t have to return, that’s 150 potential opportunities for the 55 G5 schools to get more exposure than they get for playing each other and get paid for them to boot.

Second, because playing three P5/6 teams each year will make it harder for G5 schools to be bowl eligible, let them play in one with only 5 FBS wins.

Finally, reconsider whether the "front porch" is doing the job you need done in the long run. That job isn't just getting students to enroll, it's getting them to stay connected to the university long enough to become donors in the future. That's the "patio" they keep coming home to. That, ultimately, may be your key to survival.

The worse thing that could happen to the G5 is a separation from the P5. Its possible that may happen some day---and I suspect thats when the nuclear option anti-trust suit will be filed by the G5.

The G5 would have zero chance at winning a lawsuit. Heck, it's hard to imagine what the content of a lawsuit would be - the P5 isn't obligated to play football vs the G5 any more than G5 is obligated to play against division II schools or whoever.

Fortunately for the G5, Nick Saban's comments notwithstanding, the P5 has close to zero interest in a formal separation. The P5 likes having the G5 around, that allows them to schedule game that from their perception are 'breather' games, easy wins.

If you are Saban and you have a powerhouse, then yeah, you can pontificate about only scheduling P5 (though of course he's never done it), but to most P5 schools, they need easy wins, and that's what the G5 is for, even if they occasionally do bite the P5 team in the arse.
08-01-2018 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,241
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #33
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 09:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  For most of the schools in the G5, getting promoted to a power conference isn’t a realistic aspiration. Not now, and not for many years to come. It may be an aspiration for some of their fans, but they will just have to be disappointed.

The question those schools must address is why they are playing football in the first place. Then they need to realistically assess whether playing football at their current level is helping them achieve their institutional goals. They need to have measurable results, not just some vague belief that having an FBS football team helps their enrollment or the quality of their applicant pool.

The prevailing wisdom (and I use that term with reservations) is that football is the front porch to the university. But what good is having that front porch if nobody is driving down your street? So, what can the G5 schools do to get more eyeballs driving down their street at a cost they can afford?

One answer may be that they need to act together instead of competing with each other for the title of “tallest midget”. Maybe instead of waiting for the P5 to break away from the NCAA, they should lobby to have themselves placed in a lower division than the P5. And, as part of that lobbying effort, try to get some other rules changes.

First, no longer allow the P5 to count FCS opponents toward bowl eligibility. If there are 75 P5 teams, each wanting to have two home games they don’t have to return, that’s 150 potential opportunities for the 55 G5 schools to get more exposure than they get for playing each other and get paid for them to boot.

Second, because playing three P5/6 teams each year will make it harder for G5 schools to be bowl eligible, let them play in one with only 5 FBS wins.

Finally, reconsider whether the "front porch" is doing the job you need done in the long run. That job isn't just getting students to enroll, it's getting them to stay connected to the university long enough to become donors in the future. That's the "patio" they keep coming home to. That, ultimately, may be your key to survival.

The worse thing that could happen to the G5 is a separation from the P5. Its possible that may happen some day---and I suspect thats when the nuclear option anti-trust suit will be filed by the G5.

The G5 would have zero chance at winning a lawsuit. Heck, it's hard to imagine what the content of a lawsuit would be - the P5 isn't obligated to play football vs the G5 any more than G5 is obligated to play against division II schools or whoever.

Fortunately for the G5, Nick Saban's comments notwithstanding, the P5 has close to zero interest in a formal separation. The P5 likes having the G5 around, that allows them to schedule game that from their perception are 'breather' games, easy wins.

If you are Saban and you have a powerhouse, then yeah, you can pontificate about only scheduling P5 (though of course he's never done it), but to most P5 schools, they need easy wins, and that's what the G5 is for, even if they occasionally do bite the P5 team in the arse.

Not only does Alabama play non-P5, they never play outside the southeast except for neutral site games in Texas.
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2018 07:59 PM by NIU007.)
08-01-2018 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #34
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 03:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:07 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 02:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The G5 are in a very bad spot but its more to do with the classification than anything.

We need to add another rung between FBS and FCS.

How can you say that with a straight face when AAC teams consistently beat some of the best P5's in New Years Day bowls??

I'm not sure if this is a serious response of not.

The G5 is made up of more than just the AAC.

The record of P5 v G5 is telling.

Might want to check the math.
Home team wins roughly 55% of the time in P5 vs. P5 games and around 75% to 80% of the time in P5 vs. G5 games. In NY6 and BCS games the G5/non-AQ have won 70% of the games vs P5/AQ.

Regular season games you don't see the bottom half of P5 scheduling many games vs the top half of G5.
A P5 AD generally isn't going to travel to a G5 and generally not going to schedule a better G5 unless they feel the need to avoid criticism of too soft a schedule.

A-State plays at Bama this year.
The past five years AState has faced on the road:
SEC East and title game winner, SEC West champ, An SEC also-ran that finished in the top 25, an also-ran SEC bowl team, an ACC also-ran bowl team, a Big 10 that had a terrible year and A-State had two shots from the red zone to win on the final possession.
At home
An SEC also ran that won by 7 after trailing 7 when AState's QB went out hurt.

Against second division teams, extremely competitive. Against teams that were in the upper half, not especially competitive but then some of their conference-mates were no more competitive than A-State.
08-01-2018 09:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,615
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 162
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE Temple T
Post: #35
RE: A different strategy for the G5
all these schools have marketing courses
implement the athletic dept into a class
if a student can fill a stadium, he can name his job

i agree with attackcoog, like to see NBC get real serious about CFB
start thier own college game day. NBC & NBCSN could handle maybe 150 games

1st week of season is 5 days [6 with wk 0]
P5 sch is weak
hit hard with marque matchups
08-01-2018 10:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #36
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 06:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 02:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The G5 are in a very bad spot but its more to do with the classification than anything.

We need to add another rung between FBS and FCS.

Its not really needed. Whats needed is a real legitimate access path t the CFP. Do that ---and the G5 will be just fine. It will function as a gigantic conference of smaller schools who's champ will almost always be a very dangerous team that will win more than its fair share of CFP games. I think the eventual 8-team CFP will probably largely fix the issue and make college football a very fun and healthy game with wider appeal than it has ever enjoyed. 04-cheers

I don't see an expanded playoff being real access. If anything, the creation of the Committee over the BCS Computer ensures that.

There is a serious structural issue that can't be resolved, at least not without changing the way teams pick who they play. There is simply too big of a difference on the whole. Money drives the whole boat and with that gap in place there simply will never be parity or equal access.

I've long advocated for assigning schedules at random over allowing schools to pick.

There is a structural issue—but’s the problem is the CFP—not college football. Just require one of 8 playoff slots to be a G5 slot. Simple. The committee has made it clear they are largely incapable of accurately ranking the best of G5 against the best of the P5 (probably because they weight schedule so heavily that they automatically eliminate any team that plays 8-10 G5 foes in a season). The committee does a good job of ranking G5 against other G5’s. So—let them pick the top G5 champ and include them in the playoff. The P5 still ends up with 75% more teams in the playoff with the move to 8. Frankly. I’d prefer that P5 champs be AQ if we go to 8 as well.

Handing out an auto G5 spot just isn't feasible though.

It isn't every season where you will have a G5 team ranked high enough and there will be an instance, without a shadow of a doubt, that it becomes pure charity.

The money made in this sport is not charity.

We have already established that the ranking have zero credibility with respect to properly measuring the relative strength of the top G5’s with respect to the top P5’s. What has been established is the top G5 is capable of playing ball with the best of the P5. So, what the rankings are doesn’t much matter with regard to this situation. The G5 is half of FBS. One subpar team every blue moon isn’t going to be an issue. It’s not like we haven’t seen plenty of over ranked P5 pretenders blown out in BCS/CFP games.

To me the key is to give a legit path to the playoff for every team. Access doesn’t have to be equal—it just has to legitimately exist. It will still be a million times easier to get to playoff from the P5 (7 slots for 65 teams vs 1 slot for 65).
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2018 10:28 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-01-2018 10:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #37
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 10:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 06:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not really needed. Whats needed is a real legitimate access path t the CFP. Do that ---and the G5 will be just fine. It will function as a gigantic conference of smaller schools who's champ will almost always be a very dangerous team that will win more than its fair share of CFP games. I think the eventual 8-team CFP will probably largely fix the issue and make college football a very fun and healthy game with wider appeal than it has ever enjoyed. 04-cheers

I don't see an expanded playoff being real access. If anything, the creation of the Committee over the BCS Computer ensures that.

There is a serious structural issue that can't be resolved, at least not without changing the way teams pick who they play. There is simply too big of a difference on the whole. Money drives the whole boat and with that gap in place there simply will never be parity or equal access.

I've long advocated for assigning schedules at random over allowing schools to pick.

There is a structural issue—but’s the problem is the CFP—not college football. Just require one of 8 playoff slots to be a G5 slot. Simple. The committee has made it clear they are largely incapable of accurately ranking the best of G5 against the best of the P5 (probably because they weight schedule so heavily that they automatically eliminate any team that plays 8-10 G5 foes in a season). The committee does a good job of ranking G5 against other G5’s. So—let them pick the top G5 champ and include them in the playoff. The P5 still ends up with 75% more teams in the playoff with the move to 8. Frankly. I’d prefer that P5 champs be AQ if we go to 8 as well.

Handing out an auto G5 spot just isn't feasible though.

It isn't every season where you will have a G5 team ranked high enough and there will be an instance, without a shadow of a doubt, that it becomes pure charity.

The money made in this sport is not charity.

We have already established that the ranking have zero credibility with respect to properly measuring the relative strength of the top G5’s with respect to the top P5’s. What has been established is the top G5 is capable of playing ball with the best of the P5. So, what the rankings are doesn’t much matter with regard to this situation. The G5 is half of FBS. One subpar team every blue moon isn’t going to be an issue. It’s not like we haven’t seen plenty of over ranked P5 pretenders blown out in BCS/CFP games.

To me the key is to give a legit path to the playoff for every team. Access doesn’t have to be equal—it just has to legitimately exist. It will still be a million times easier to get to playoff from the P5 (7 slots for 65 teams vs 1 slot for 65).

I think we've distilled this down enough to say that it appears that one off, down game, is a price you are willing to pay for access. The counter point is that it is an unacceptable price for others, particularly the number 8/9 ranked team each year having to give up their spot to number 23, or NR. You have to keep in mind that isn't a cost just to fans or networks but to the kids on the team getting the shaft that year.

One spot just isn't justified. There has to be a different solution.
08-01-2018 10:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,615
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 162
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE Temple T
Post: #38
RE: A different strategy for the G5
wanting acesses to survive not gonna work
P5 not going to due any favors

TV ratings & fans would work
08-01-2018 11:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #39
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 03:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 02:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The G5 are in a very bad spot but its more to do with the classification than anything.

We need to add another rung between FBS and FCS.

Its not really needed. Whats needed is a real legitimate access path t the CFP. Do that ---and the G5 will be just fine. It will function as a gigantic conference of smaller schools who's champ will almost always be a very dangerous team that will win more than its fair share of CFP games. I think the eventual 8-team CFP will probably largely fix the issue and make college football a very fun and healthy game with wider appeal than it has ever enjoyed. 04-cheers

I don't see an expanded playoff being real access. If anything, the creation of the Committee over the BCS Computer ensures that.

There is a serious structural issue that can't be resolved, at least not without changing the way teams pick who they play. There is simply too big of a difference on the whole. Money drives the whole boat and with that gap in place there simply will never be parity or equal access.

I've long advocated for assigning schedules at random over allowing schools to pick.

There is a structural issue—but’s the problem is the CFP—not college football. Just require one of 8 playoff slots to be a G5 slot. Simple. The committee has made it clear they are largely incapable of accurately ranking the best of G5 against the best of the P5 (probably because they weight schedule so heavily that they automatically eliminate any team that plays 8-10 G5 foes in a season).

Not the best of the P5, more like the second-tier.

The four P5 teams that the G5 have played in the NY6 during the CFP years have had 3, 2, 3, and 3 losses going in to the NY6 game, and none of have been conference champs. All of them except FSU lost the last game they played before their bowl game, and FSU was eliminated from national title/playoff contention weeks earlier. They got in to the NY6 because they vaulted from #15 to #9 in the last CFP rankings thanks to beating then - #10 Florida, but that was an overreaction, as Florida really wasn't that good, they ended up getting crushed in the SEC title game and in the Citrus Bowl to finish at #25 in the final post-bowl poll.

So no, these have not been the top-line P5 teams, which is why they were pitted vs the G5 team.
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2018 11:58 PM by quo vadis.)
08-01-2018 11:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #40
RE: A different strategy for the G5
(08-01-2018 10:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 10:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 06:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-01-2018 03:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't see an expanded playoff being real access. If anything, the creation of the Committee over the BCS Computer ensures that.

There is a serious structural issue that can't be resolved, at least not without changing the way teams pick who they play. There is simply too big of a difference on the whole. Money drives the whole boat and with that gap in place there simply will never be parity or equal access.

I've long advocated for assigning schedules at random over allowing schools to pick.

There is a structural issue—but’s the problem is the CFP—not college football. Just require one of 8 playoff slots to be a G5 slot. Simple. The committee has made it clear they are largely incapable of accurately ranking the best of G5 against the best of the P5 (probably because they weight schedule so heavily that they automatically eliminate any team that plays 8-10 G5 foes in a season). The committee does a good job of ranking G5 against other G5’s. So—let them pick the top G5 champ and include them in the playoff. The P5 still ends up with 75% more teams in the playoff with the move to 8. Frankly. I’d prefer that P5 champs be AQ if we go to 8 as well.

Handing out an auto G5 spot just isn't feasible though.

It isn't every season where you will have a G5 team ranked high enough and there will be an instance, without a shadow of a doubt, that it becomes pure charity.

The money made in this sport is not charity.

We have already established that the ranking have zero credibility with respect to properly measuring the relative strength of the top G5’s with respect to the top P5’s. What has been established is the top G5 is capable of playing ball with the best of the P5. So, what the rankings are doesn’t much matter with regard to this situation. The G5 is half of FBS. One subpar team every blue moon isn’t going to be an issue. It’s not like we haven’t seen plenty of over ranked P5 pretenders blown out in BCS/CFP games.

To me the key is to give a legit path to the playoff for every team. Access doesn’t have to be equal—it just has to legitimately exist. It will still be a million times easier to get to playoff from the P5 (7 slots for 65 teams vs 1 slot for 65).

I think we've distilled this down enough to say that it appears that one off, down game, is a price you are willing to pay for access. The counter point is that it is an unacceptable price for others, particularly the number 8/9 ranked team each year having to give up their spot to number 23, or NR. You have to keep in mind that isn't a cost just to fans or networks but to the kids on the team getting the shaft that year.

One spot just isn't justified. There has to be a different solution.

Well there is one other solution. A 10 man selection committee comprised of 1 rep from each FBS conference. That will at least end the blatant disregard for the top G5 teams in the committee room and give the deserving G5 teams a fair shake. Frankly, I suspect the P5 is better off with 7 near guaranteed slots over giving half the committee seats to G5 reps. Frankly if the #8 or 9 team gets slighted for the #23 G5---I really dont feel too bad. Right now undefeated G5's cant even get a top 10 rating out this joke of system.

Here is my preference.

P5 champs AQ
Top G5 (AQ)
2 wild cards (the 2 top ranked teams not included in the 6 AQ's).

Everyone has a path to the CFP. Championships matter---meaning the regular season is important. Every game matters because the wild cards and seeding is based on rank. If the G5 is as easy a win as the current committee thinks--then it should be a big big big deal to be the number seed and get that eazy peazy G5 game. I like my system because the vast majority of the slots are filled via direct on the field action and not by a bunch of ice skating judges looking at their little score cards with criteria that changes like the wind. I mean--everyone has a preference--but I think this is the one that will garner the biggest audience because it makes sense, is easily understandable, and pitches the biggest tent reasonably possible which should result in the largest potential audience. You get every area of the country. You get the Cinderella--and you are always guaranteed that the #1 and #2 teams in the nation are in---even if there are upsets in the CCG.
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2018 12:11 AM by Attackcoog.)
08-02-2018 12:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.