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 strategy in the G5 so far has been an every conference for itself strategy.

The better G5 programs should in my estimation take a shot at playing each other more since in each conference at this point there is enough separation top to bottom to take a risk in the non-conference schedule.

That would tie the top programs across the G5 to help out with recruiting. You could say the AAC doesn't need it if they can score quality 1 and 1's with the P5 and P5 scheduling should be the first priority of any G5. After that I think G5 should try to play the top of the G5 where its a certain home-home and a chance to improve access bowl resume with a quality G5 win.

If you're in the B12 and want to avoid competition to build a winning tradition (the Kansas State way) that is different. But I don't think it makes sense in the G5 where your competitive level is thrown into doubt.

(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.

Once you go to another classification you rip the front porch off and have just a stoop. When that happens next logical step for Rice is D3. I'd rather lose to Texas than beat Trinity.

Law of unintended consequences. They did once declare FCS wouldn't count toward bowls and before you could sip a cup of coffee, Akron, LaTech, Arkansas State, and Nevada had already moved into FBS.

(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 (which would have nothing to lose at that point). For the G5 to willingly push for such a separation to create a new version of FCS would be beyond foolish.

From where I sit, the individual G5's or the G5 as a group have little power in FBS. Thier lack of power is a direct result of their perceived value in the marketplace. I see little reason to believe there is much they can accomplish as a group that would be impossible to attain by a single highly motivated individual G5.

About the only place I could see cooperation between the G5's being of significant value is using the next bowl cycle to create a series of high level games that would serve as appropriate destinations for the 4 G5 champs that dont make the access bowl. The G5 could choose to set aside the first 10 million of 85-90 million dollar check the CFP writes the G5 each year to create this "Champions Series" bowls. Over the last 2 years of the current bowl cycle, the G5 would create a 20 million dallar pool from which to fund the 3 additional games needed. I suspect these bowls would largely be self funded once the 20 million in seed money is invested (at worse, they only need a million or two a year in future investment to stay solvent).

#1 G5 champ to access bowl

New bowl--#2 G5 champ vs #1-4 P5 (payout 3 million for P5 and 1 million for G5)

New bowl--#3 G5 champ vs #1-4 P5 (payout 3 million for P5 and 1 million for G5)

New bowl-#4 G5 champs vs #5 G5 champ (payout 1 million each)

The problem is this requires 5 conferences to cooperate. The reality is any single individual conference could choose to set aside a portion of thier CFP share (say 3 million a year) for the next 2 years and accomplish the exact same thing for themselves. While I doubt either event occurs---the reality is--- its more likely a single conferences membership could pull together to accomplish such a goal before anyone could get any such cooperation from 5 separate conferences with very different priorities and agenda's (to get an idea of the complexity---just think about getting agreements for bowl locations when you have 5 conferences rather than a single conference).

(08-01-2018 10:21 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The strategy in the G5 so far has been an every conference for itself strategy.

The better G5 programs should in my estimation take a shot at playing each other more since in each conference at this point there is enough separation top to bottom to take a risk in the non-conference schedule.

That would tie the top programs across the G5 to help out with recruiting. You could say the AAC doesn't need it if they can score quality 1 and 1's with the P5 and P5 scheduling should be the first priority of any G5. After that I think G5 should try to play the top of the G5 where its a certain home-home and a chance to improve access bowl resume with a quality G5 win.

If you're in the B12 and want to avoid competition to build a winning tradition (the Kansas State way) that is different. But I don't think it makes sense in the G5 where your competitive level is thrown into doubt.

I am with you. UC opens with UCLA in the Rose Bowl, 7PM ESPN1 broadcast. UCLA at Nippert next season. Home and home with Ohio starting this season. We had Marshall and Michigan OOC last season. Home and homes with Nebraska and IU soon. In recent years home and home game vs. Fresno, Oklahoma, NC State, Purdue, Illinois, Toledo, Miami Hurricanes, BYU, neutral site VaTech. One more game against OSU next season.

Miami of Oh. is always a well attended game, now the 2nd longest active D1 rivalry game. Whisky-Minny is the longest ongoing.

The g5 “street” for eyeballs is working for the AAC and from I sit on the AAC porch I see a growing number of eyeballs every year so ...

So because it isn't a level playing field and the odds are stacked against G5 teams, they should give up and go home?

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.

(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.

Of course this^ statement came from a Bama fan.

(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.

(08-01-2018 03:01 PM)Fthechips 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.

Of course this^ statement came from a Bama fan.

...whatever that means.

(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??

(08-01-2018 03:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:01 PM)Fthechips 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.

Of course this^ statement came from a Bama fan.

...whatever that means.

Every G5 fan knows what that means.

(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.

(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.

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.

(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.

(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.

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.

(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.

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.

I don't think anyone is asking for parity or equal access. Just less unequal access.

An actual playoff - 8 teams - would help slightly, maybe more than slightly depending on how the teams were chosen.

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.