(04-20-2015 02:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  "acknowledging" that you are speculating changes nothing about what I said, or what you are doing. Like if someone said "no offense, but you are an *******," that doesn't make the statement any less of an insult (note I am not saying that about you, just using it as an example).

Terrible analogy. An insult is an insult, and an apology - preemptive or post-hoc - is an apology, they are separate. What you've done is made an insult, and apologized for it, the apology doesn't erase the insult.

In my case, what I said about nobody knowing the future absolutely does qualify and clarify any previous statements that seemed to indicate I was speaking factually, it makes it clear that I have been offering speculative opinions. That's simply how the English language works. From that point forward, it is wrong-headed to claim I was speaking factually. Thus, since your first post claiming that was #289, after my #282, you are being wrong-headed. Just admit it and move on.

And, for the third time:

You also must have missed post 285, where MplsBison unequivocally claims that my view is mistaken, which means he is claiming factual status for his position.

(04-20-2015 07:22 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 06:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Markets mean nothing if the school (brand) means nothing in the market.

Most of the schools I mentioned do have name recognition like Memphis, Northern Illinois, East Carolina, Central Florida, Cincinnati and South Florida. That is why many schools in the G5 conferences that are out there in name from different sports people do recognized thanks to the likes of ESPN. Even North Dakota State get a P5 love at ESPN Game Day for football the past 2 seasons. With ESPN spinning the story of these top G5 schools? You might see people are attractive to those brand name than you do realized.

All of those schools are getting paid about $1m to $2m a year for their media rights, so that basically shows that TexanMark is correct.

(04-21-2015 09:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 07:22 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 06:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Markets mean nothing if the school (brand) means nothing in the market.

Most of the schools I mentioned do have name recognition like Memphis, Northern Illinois, East Carolina, Central Florida, Cincinnati and South Florida. That is why many schools in the G5 conferences that are out there in name from different sports people do recognized thanks to the likes of ESPN. Even North Dakota State get a P5 love at ESPN Game Day for football the past 2 seasons. With ESPN spinning the story of these top G5 schools? You might see people are attractive to those brand name than you do realized.

All of those schools are getting paid about $1m to $2m a year for their media rights, so that basically shows that TexanMark is correct.

I forgot that Houston, BYU, Air Force, Navy, Fresno State, Hawaii and Colorado State on that list as well that people recognized.

(04-14-2015 06:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 04:39 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 02:04 PM)Underdog Wrote:  You are entitled to your opinion, which I disagree with because I heard the excuse reason ESPN The committee chairperson gave regarding the TCU and Baylor situation. However, what is posted in red below also indirectly applies to TCU losing to Baylor on the road (it shouldn't count as much because of home field). In the NFL (since you brought it up), if two teams in the same conference finished tied for a playoff spot, obtaining the spot and seeding will be determined by head-to-head record even if the teams only played each other once.

What I brought up about the NFL was how the H2H comparison at the division level, where the teams play twice, provides a strong, robust showing of H2H advantage if one team sweeps the other. Just because the NFL also uses a single H2H loss to make a determination among two teams in the same conference is, well, irrelevant, as it is subject to the same criticism I made of using it in TCU vs Baylor. IOW's, the validity of my argument didn't lie in the fact that the NFL did something, but what was done. The NFL is correct to use H2H at the divisional level because two games are played home and away, but wrong to make it decisive at the conference level, where only a single game is played and at one of the team's home stadiums.

Second, I heard all the words that came out of the selection committee to justify putting Baylor > TCU in the final poll. It made no sense, since the exact same rationale should have been applicable in prior weeks, when TCU was ahead of Baylor despite having lost to them. To any rational person, once Baylor lost badly to WVU, they should have been ranked behind TCU. And that's indeed how it was - until the committee needed a rationale for putting Ohio State in the playoffs.

You are better than this Quo…. Let MplsBison continue using the NFL divisions analogy to make a point about a conference (the B12) that doesn’t have divisions. Moving on.... I have already explained the committee’s reason for dropping TCU out of the playoffs and ranking Baylor ahead of it. The committee was not appointed to determine who the B12’s (or any other conference) champ was; it was evaluating TCU and Baylor from a playoff perspective. The chairperson said he had to wait until all the games (CCGs) had been played.

1) Good grief. He had to wait until all the CCG's -none of which involved Baylor or TCU - had been played to do what? Understand that Baylor and TCU had the same record and that Baylor had won their game? That was true in the four weeks before the final week of voting, so there is absolutely no rational justification for moving Baylor ahead of TCU in the final poll. The CCG's did not involve Baylor or TCU whatsoever, so nothing about the outcome of those games had anything to do with whether TCU or Baylor should be ranked ahead of the other.

2) The only explanation that makes sense was the one I offered: Moving Baylor ahead of TCU provided cover for the real goal, which was to move Ohio State ahead of both.

3) In that regard, the committee chair WAS telling the truth: He needed to see if Ohio State would win their CCG, because if they did, then he'd need to get them into the playoffs, and to do that, he had to move Baylor ahead of TCU so that Ohio State could be favorably compared to Baylor, rather than unfavorably compared to TCU. Because TCU absolutely had the better resume than Ohio State, whereas Baylor did not.

4) Ohio State loses to Wisconsin, no way TCU gets dumped from the Final 4.

I like you Quo…. However, we are having some serious communication problems in this thread–which I’ll attempt to address:

1) You do realize that Baylor and TCU also played on CCG weekend…. Baylor beat a tough K St. team and TCU blew out lowly Iowa St. This is why Jeff Long said the committee had to wait until all the games were played, which included the CCGs for the other power conferences.

2) Once the committee was presented with B12 co-champions, the aforementioned NFL analogy that I tried to explain to you in post #264 became a factor regarding TCU and Baylor. Nevertheless, I’ve already acknowledged in post #164 that “ESPN the committee was able to use other reasons (no CCG, Baylor’s sos) to further validate placing the bigger brand (Ohio $t.) into the playoff.”

Therefore, we agree about the primary reason why Ohio $t. was placed in the playoff. In addition to this, I also agree with ESPN’s the committee’s excuses reasons for placing Ohio $t. in the playoff. College football has become more corporate and less of a sport in my opinion. Consequently, ESPN placed the bigger and better brand in the playoff (to make more $$$) that also happened to be the best team. If you were running ESPN, wouldn’t you select Ohio $t. over TCU if the B12 had given you several excuses reasons to justify the selection?

Moreover, the B12 wants the same consideration for doing less—no CCG. The possible consequences of not having a CCG were made known to the B12 commissioner by ESPN before the season started (which he denied having knowledge of). We were subsequently subjected to the “One True Champ” SCAM-paign until there was a possibility that two B12 teams could make the playoffs. ESPN (using the committee) rightfully rewarded the conferences willing to risk playing CCGs.

3) The committee (ESPN) didn’t focus only on the Ohio $t game. You do realize that the other champs could have lost as well, which takes us back to point 1....

4) I disagree…. Baylor has become a bigger brand than TCU. As a result, the committee would have used the head-to-head reason to place Baylor into the playoff in my opinion. In fact, Baylor finished the season ranked ahead of TCU. Nonetheless, I know you will attribute this to the committee placing Ohio $t. in the playoff.

In closing, may we agree to disagree Quo….

(04-22-2015 01:44 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 06:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 04:39 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 02:04 PM)Underdog Wrote:  You are entitled to your opinion, which I disagree with because I heard the excuse reason ESPN The committee chairperson gave regarding the TCU and Baylor situation. However, what is posted in red below also indirectly applies to TCU losing to Baylor on the road (it shouldn't count as much because of home field). In the NFL (since you brought it up), if two teams in the same conference finished tied for a playoff spot, obtaining the spot and seeding will be determined by head-to-head record even if the teams only played each other once.

What I brought up about the NFL was how the H2H comparison at the division level, where the teams play twice, provides a strong, robust showing of H2H advantage if one team sweeps the other. Just because the NFL also uses a single H2H loss to make a determination among two teams in the same conference is, well, irrelevant, as it is subject to the same criticism I made of using it in TCU vs Baylor. IOW's, the validity of my argument didn't lie in the fact that the NFL did something, but what was done. The NFL is correct to use H2H at the divisional level because two games are played home and away, but wrong to make it decisive at the conference level, where only a single game is played and at one of the team's home stadiums.

Second, I heard all the words that came out of the selection committee to justify putting Baylor > TCU in the final poll. It made no sense, since the exact same rationale should have been applicable in prior weeks, when TCU was ahead of Baylor despite having lost to them. To any rational person, once Baylor lost badly to WVU, they should have been ranked behind TCU. And that's indeed how it was - until the committee needed a rationale for putting Ohio State in the playoffs.

You are better than this Quo…. Let MplsBison continue using the NFL divisions analogy to make a point about a conference (the B12) that doesn’t have divisions. Moving on.... I have already explained the committee’s reason for dropping TCU out of the playoffs and ranking Baylor ahead of it. The committee was not appointed to determine who the B12’s (or any other conference) champ was; it was evaluating TCU and Baylor from a playoff perspective. The chairperson said he had to wait until all the games (CCGs) had been played.

1) Good grief. He had to wait until all the CCG's -none of which involved Baylor or TCU - had been played to do what? Understand that Baylor and TCU had the same record and that Baylor had won their game? That was true in the four weeks before the final week of voting, so there is absolutely no rational justification for moving Baylor ahead of TCU in the final poll. The CCG's did not involve Baylor or TCU whatsoever, so nothing about the outcome of those games had anything to do with whether TCU or Baylor should be ranked ahead of the other.

2) The only explanation that makes sense was the one I offered: Moving Baylor ahead of TCU provided cover for the real goal, which was to move Ohio State ahead of both.

3) In that regard, the committee chair WAS telling the truth: He needed to see if Ohio State would win their CCG, because if they did, then he'd need to get them into the playoffs, and to do that, he had to move Baylor ahead of TCU so that Ohio State could be favorably compared to Baylor, rather than unfavorably compared to TCU. Because TCU absolutely had the better resume than Ohio State, whereas Baylor did not.

4) Ohio State loses to Wisconsin, no way TCU gets dumped from the Final 4.

I like you Quo…. However, we are having some serious communication problems in this thread–which I’ll attempt to address:

1) You do realize that Baylor and TCU also played on CCG weekend…. Baylor beat a tough K St. team and TCU blew out lowly Iowa St. This is why Jeff Long said the committee had to wait until all the games were played, which included the CCGs for the other power conferences.

2) Once the committee was presented with B12 co-champions, the aforementioned NFL analogy that I tried to explain to you in post #264 became a factor regarding TCU and Baylor.

Of course I know that both TCU and Baylor played on CCG weekend. But that is irrelevant, because both of them won their games, and impressively. So the CCG weekend results for Baylor and TCU do not provide a basis for moving Baylor ahead of TCU.

Besides, that also provides no justification for Long's claim that he "had to wait for the CCG weekend results", to know who the Big 12 regarded as its champion, because who the champion is has nothing to do with the validity of H2H as a tie-breaker. If H2H was a reason to rank Baylor ahead of TCU once both were declared Big 12 co-champs, it should have been a reason to have Baylor ahead of TCU before that declaration, because the logic of H2H has nothing to do with whether one team has been declared a champ or not. But before the final poll, TCU was always ahead of Baylor in the committee rankings, despite Baylor having the H2H advantage.

Also, the results of the CCG games of other conferences have absolutely nothing to do with whether Baylor should be ranked ahead of TCU or not. They have a lot to do with whether those teams playing in CCG games should be ranked ahead of Baylor and/or TCU, but nothing to do with whether Baylor should be ahead of TCU.

For example, had FSU lost to Georgia Tech in the AAC title game, then that would probably mean they should be ranked behind Baylor and TCU, while their winning that game means they should be ranked ahead of both, but neither of those outcomes impacts on whether Baylor should be ranked ahead of TCU.

Bottom line: The committee obviously did not believe that Baylor should be ranked ahead of TCU because of H2H. Had they believed that, they would have had Baylor ranked ahead of TCU during the entirety of their weekly rankings, from the first week to the last. But they did not. They had TCU ahead of Baylor in EVERY ranking they issued until the last one, DESPITE Baylor having the H2H win over TCU during that entire time.

There was absolutely nothing that happened that last weekend - not the results of the Baylor and TCU games (because both won easily), nor the results of the other CCG games (because as explained, those can only logically impact whether the winners of those games should be ranked ahead of Baylor and/or TCU, not whether Baylor should be ranked ahead of TCU) nor the declaration by the Big 12 that Baylor and TCU were co-champs (because the logic of H2H has nothing to do with 'champ' status).

So the committee had absolutely no valid reason to move Baylor ahead of TCU in the last poll. The reason was to boost Ohio State into the playoffs.

Beyond that, we seem to agree that the committee/ESPN were eager to put big-brand Ohio State in the playoffs, so no need to rehash any of that.

Just think how much energy could have been saved debating this topic if the selection committee had just not agreed to do a weekly dog and pony show for ESPN. Can you imagine the NCAAT committee announcing every week leading up to Selection Sunday how they were feeling about the top seeds and which teams they had on the bubble? I don't know who thought this was a good idea.

If the committee had deliberated in complete secrecy in the weeks leading up to the final weekend, and had then announced the selection of the very same four schools they ultimately decided on, that would have been the end of it. Fans might have disagreed on which four teams should have been picked, but most people would have recognized that there were six qualified teams and only four spots. They would have accepted the committee's difficult decision and not questioned their motives or integrity.

If ESPN wants a weekly dog and pony show, let them trot out their football equivalent of Joe Lunardi and let the other talking heads debate whether his predictions will match the committee's decisions. Lunardi can say whatever he wants and if he's wrong, so what? His opinions and pronouncements don't reflect on the committee. But if the CFP committee speaks prematurely, everything they say can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion.

This did not need to happen.

(04-23-2015 04:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  Just think how much energy could have been saved debating this topic if the selection committee had just not agreed to do a weekly dog and pony show foe ESPN. Can you imagine the NCAAT committee announcing every week leading up to Selection Sunday how they were feeling about the top seeds and which teams they had on the bubble? I don't know who thought this was a good idea.

If the committee had deliberated in complete secrecy in the weeks leading up to the final weekend, and had then announced the selection of the very same four schools they ultimately decided on, that would have been the end of it. Fans might have disagreed on which four teams should have been picked, but most people would have recognized that there were six qualified teams and only four spots. They would have accepted the committee's difficult decision and not questioned their motives or integrity.

If ESPN wants a weekly dog and pony show, let them trot out their football equivalent of Joe Lunardi and let the other talking heads debate whether his predictions will match the committee's decisions. Lunardi can say whatever he wants and if he's wrong, so what? His opinions and pronouncements don't reflect on the committee. But if the CFP committee speaks prematurely, everything they say can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion.

This did not need to happen.

The committee should wait until all the games are played to reveal its selections and also give explanations. Consequently, I agree with you that ESPN should "let the other talking heads debate whether his predictions will match the committee's decisions." However, ESPN clearly demonstrated that it has a lot of influence on the committee. Many of Jeff Longs words were identical to ESPN's "talking heads" that you referenced.

Of course ESPN has a lot to say about the Committee's selections, they own the CFP's. They also own the SEC and the ACC two of the conferences vying for a spot in them. Oh wait a minute. ESPN owns the College Football Playoffs and two of the conferences vying for spots to play in them. Hmm, do you think that those two conferences may have a better chance at participation then the other conferences? Nah, that would be biased, unethical and illegal. I mean, you may even consider that a monopoly of some sort. Hmm, I wonder.

(04-25-2015 02:29 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  Of course ESPN has a lot to say about the Committee's selections, they own the CFP's. They also own the SEC and the ACC two of the conferences vying for a spot in them. Oh wait a minute. ESPN owns the College Football Playoffs and two of the conferences vying for spots to play in them. Hmm, do you think that those two conferences may have a better chance at participation then the other conferences? Nah, that would be biased, unethical and illegal. I mean, you may even consider that a monopoly of some sort. Hmm, I wonder.

ESPN actually has an official on the Committee itself. Their owning of the television rights to the CFP definitely means the Committee is listening to ESPN and their expertise but they don't have the ultimate say in who gets in. They do have a strong voice in it though.

If you are paying $500 million for something, wouldn't you expect to have a voice? I would expect to have a BIG voice.

I said they have a strong voice in it. When you pay 500 million, you are paying because you know you will make a lot more than that off of the advertising revenue. You aren't paying for television rights so that you get to decide whom takes part and whom doesn't.

The ESPN official on the Committee tells them behind closed doors what teams ESPN feels will bring about the best possible Tournament but they don't tell the Committee whom to pick.

(04-25-2015 03:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 02:29 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  Of course ESPN has a lot to say about the Committee's selections, they own the CFP's. They also own the SEC and the ACC two of the conferences vying for a spot in them. Oh wait a minute. ESPN owns the College Football Playoffs and two of the conferences vying for spots to play in them. Hmm, do you think that those two conferences may have a better chance at participation then the other conferences? Nah, that would be biased, unethical and illegal. I mean, you may even consider that a monopoly of some sort. Hmm, I wonder.

ESPN actually has an official on the Committee itself. Their owning of the television rights to the CFP definitely means the Committee is listening to ESPN and their expertise but they don't have the ultimate say in who gets in. They do have a strong voice in it though.

ESPN is trying to get their money-making teams into the G5. The Catholic 7 screwed that up when the Big East now AAC lost their identity. Why do you think Boise State got the G5 spot for the bowl game tie in? Boise State makes money more than Marshall in tv viewership and all that. They see signs in UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Fresno State, Houston, East Carolina and Northern Illinois. I also see they have a couple more darlings at the FCS in Eastern Washington and North Dakota State.

(04-25-2015 07:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 02:29 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  Of course ESPN has a lot to say about the Committee's selections, they own the CFP's. They also own the SEC and the ACC two of the conferences vying for a spot in them. Oh wait a minute. ESPN owns the College Football Playoffs and two of the conferences vying for spots to play in them. Hmm, do you think that those two conferences may have a better chance at participation then the other conferences? Nah, that would be biased, unethical and illegal. I mean, you may even consider that a monopoly of some sort. Hmm, I wonder.

ESPN actually has an official on the Committee itself. Their owning of the television rights to the CFP definitely means the Committee is listening to ESPN and their expertise but they don't have the ultimate say in who gets in. They do have a strong voice in it though.

ESPN is trying to get their money-making teams into the G5. The Catholic 7 screwed that up when the Big East now AAC lost their identity. Why do you think Boise State got the G5 spot for the bowl game tie in? Boise State makes money more than Marshall in tv viewership and all that. They see signs in UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Fresno State, Houston, East Carolina and Northern Illinois. I also see they have a couple more darlings at the FCS in Eastern Washington and North Dakota State.

Preaching to the choir. I'm the guy that says the AAC will go to 20 teams with four divisions of five AND their own conference tournament from which their champion will receive an auto bid to the future expanded College Football Playoff.

(04-25-2015 09:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 02:29 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  Of course ESPN has a lot to say about the Committee's selections, they own the CFP's. They also own the SEC and the ACC two of the conferences vying for a spot in them. Oh wait a minute. ESPN owns the College Football Playoffs and two of the conferences vying for spots to play in them. Hmm, do you think that those two conferences may have a better chance at participation then the other conferences? Nah, that would be biased, unethical and illegal. I mean, you may even consider that a monopoly of some sort. Hmm, I wonder.

ESPN actually has an official on the Committee itself. Their owning of the television rights to the CFP definitely means the Committee is listening to ESPN and their expertise but they don't have the ultimate say in who gets in. They do have a strong voice in it though.

ESPN is trying to get their money-making teams into the G5. The Catholic 7 screwed that up when the Big East now AAC lost their identity. Why do you think Boise State got the G5 spot for the bowl game tie in? Boise State makes money more than Marshall in tv viewership and all that. They see signs in UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Fresno State, Houston, East Carolina and Northern Illinois. I also see they have a couple more darlings at the FCS in Eastern Washington and North Dakota State.

Preaching to the choir. I'm the guy that says the AAC will go to 20 teams with four divisions of five AND their own conference tournament from which their champion will receive an auto bid to the future expanded College Football Playoff.

The only way a 20-team AAC of any configuration gets an auto-bid to a future expanded CFP is if all the other existing FBS conferences do as well. There is no possible 20-team AAC configuration that could be so valuable as to command inclusion with the P5 in an auto-bid category and yet leave the rest of the G5 (or whatever number of "Gs" exist at the time) behind without it. Not any, no matter how wild one's imagination in creating it is.

(04-26-2015 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 09:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 02:29 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  Of course ESPN has a lot to say about the Committee's selections, they own the CFP's. They also own the SEC and the ACC two of the conferences vying for a spot in them. Oh wait a minute. ESPN owns the College Football Playoffs and two of the conferences vying for spots to play in them. Hmm, do you think that those two conferences may have a better chance at participation then the other conferences? Nah, that would be biased, unethical and illegal. I mean, you may even consider that a monopoly of some sort. Hmm, I wonder.

ESPN actually has an official on the Committee itself. Their owning of the television rights to the CFP definitely means the Committee is listening to ESPN and their expertise but they don't have the ultimate say in who gets in. They do have a strong voice in it though.

ESPN is trying to get their money-making teams into the G5. The Catholic 7 screwed that up when the Big East now AAC lost their identity. Why do you think Boise State got the G5 spot for the bowl game tie in? Boise State makes money more than Marshall in tv viewership and all that. They see signs in UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Fresno State, Houston, East Carolina and Northern Illinois. I also see they have a couple more darlings at the FCS in Eastern Washington and North Dakota State.

Preaching to the choir. I'm the guy that says the AAC will go to 20 teams with four divisions of five AND their own conference tournament from which their champion will receive an auto bid to the future expanded College Football Playoff.

The only way a 20-team AAC of any configuration gets an auto-bid to a future expanded CFP is if all the other existing FBS conferences do as well. There is no possible 20-team AAC configuration that could be so valuable as to command inclusion with the P5 in an auto-bid category and yet leave the rest of the G5 (or whatever number of "Gs" exist at the time) behind without it. Not any, no matter how wild one's imagination in creating it is.

Yes there is such a configuration. In a P4 setting, with an AAC that has picked the best from the G5 level, it then becomes a conference in between the two realities so to speak.

(04-25-2015 07:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 02:29 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  Of course ESPN has a lot to say about the Committee's selections, they own the CFP's. They also own the SEC and the ACC two of the conferences vying for a spot in them. Oh wait a minute. ESPN owns the College Football Playoffs and two of the conferences vying for spots to play in them. Hmm, do you think that those two conferences may have a better chance at participation then the other conferences? Nah, that would be biased, unethical and illegal. I mean, you may even consider that a monopoly of some sort. Hmm, I wonder.

ESPN actually has an official on the Committee itself. Their owning of the television rights to the CFP definitely means the Committee is listening to ESPN and their expertise but they don't have the ultimate say in who gets in. They do have a strong voice in it though.

ESPN is trying to get their money-making teams into the G5. The Catholic 7 screwed that up when the Big East now AAC lost their identity. Why do you think Boise State got the G5 spot for the bowl game tie in? Boise State makes money more than Marshall in tv viewership and all that. They see signs in UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Fresno State, Houston, East Carolina and Northern Illinois. I also see they have a couple more darlings at the FCS in Eastern Washington and North Dakota State.

Boise State got in over Marshall because Boise actually you know played some decent teams. Marshall may have been good- but we had no way of knowing that because they had as bad of a SOS as you could possibly have. It's got nothing to do about ESPN at all.

(04-26-2015 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 09:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 02:29 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  Of course ESPN has a lot to say about the Committee's selections, they own the CFP's. They also own the SEC and the ACC two of the conferences vying for a spot in them. Oh wait a minute. ESPN owns the College Football Playoffs and two of the conferences vying for spots to play in them. Hmm, do you think that those two conferences may have a better chance at participation then the other conferences? Nah, that would be biased, unethical and illegal. I mean, you may even consider that a monopoly of some sort. Hmm, I wonder.

ESPN actually has an official on the Committee itself. Their owning of the television rights to the CFP definitely means the Committee is listening to ESPN and their expertise but they don't have the ultimate say in who gets in. They do have a strong voice in it though.

ESPN is trying to get their money-making teams into the G5. The Catholic 7 screwed that up when the Big East now AAC lost their identity. Why do you think Boise State got the G5 spot for the bowl game tie in? Boise State makes money more than Marshall in tv viewership and all that. They see signs in UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Fresno State, Houston, East Carolina and Northern Illinois. I also see they have a couple more darlings at the FCS in Eastern Washington and North Dakota State.

Preaching to the choir. I'm the guy that says the AAC will go to 20 teams with four divisions of five AND their own conference tournament from which their champion will receive an auto bid to the future expanded College Football Playoff.

The only way a 20-team AAC of any configuration gets an auto-bid to a future expanded CFP is if all the other existing FBS conferences do as well. There is no possible 20-team AAC configuration that could be so valuable as to command inclusion with the P5 in an auto-bid category and yet leave the rest of the G5 (or whatever number of "Gs" exist at the time) behind without it. Not any, no matter how wild one's imagination in creating it is.

For the recent history, only 1 G5 conference that can compete with the P5 from top to bottom is MWC. All the times do play very close games with P5 components. Some of them where upset wins, and others were almost upsets. Like Fresno State almost beat USC.

(04-26-2015 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 09:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 02:29 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  Of course ESPN has a lot to say about the Committee's selections, they own the CFP's. They also own the SEC and the ACC two of the conferences vying for a spot in them. Oh wait a minute. ESPN owns the College Football Playoffs and two of the conferences vying for spots to play in them. Hmm, do you think that those two conferences may have a better chance at participation then the other conferences? Nah, that would be biased, unethical and illegal. I mean, you may even consider that a monopoly of some sort. Hmm, I wonder.

ESPN actually has an official on the Committee itself. Their owning of the television rights to the CFP definitely means the Committee is listening to ESPN and their expertise but they don't have the ultimate say in who gets in. They do have a strong voice in it though.

ESPN is trying to get their money-making teams into the G5. The Catholic 7 screwed that up when the Big East now AAC lost their identity. Why do you think Boise State got the G5 spot for the bowl game tie in? Boise State makes money more than Marshall in tv viewership and all that. They see signs in UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Fresno State, Houston, East Carolina and Northern Illinois. I also see they have a couple more darlings at the FCS in Eastern Washington and North Dakota State.

Preaching to the choir. I'm the guy that says the AAC will go to 20 teams with four divisions of five AND their own conference tournament from which their champion will receive an auto bid to the future expanded College Football Playoff.

The only way a 20-team AAC of any configuration gets an auto-bid to a future expanded CFP is if all the other existing FBS conferences do as well. There is no possible 20-team AAC configuration that could be so valuable as to command inclusion with the P5 in an auto-bid category and yet leave the rest of the G5 (or whatever number of "Gs" exist at the time) behind without it. Not any, no matter how wild one's imagination in creating it is.

Under the current landscape, the current AAC with the top 6 from the MW would likely get the G5 access slot every year. That's about as close to being AQ as a G5 league can get for now. However, if the CFP goes to 8, I could see the G5 slot becoming a playoff slot instead of an access bowl slot. Again, a AAC-MW combo would command the slot so often, the result would be quite similar to being AQ.

(04-26-2015 06:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 09:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  ESPN actually has an official on the Committee itself. Their owning of the television rights to the CFP definitely means the Committee is listening to ESPN and their expertise but they don't have the ultimate say in who gets in. They do have a strong voice in it though.

ESPN is trying to get their money-making teams into the G5. The Catholic 7 screwed that up when the Big East now AAC lost their identity. Why do you think Boise State got the G5 spot for the bowl game tie in? Boise State makes money more than Marshall in tv viewership and all that. They see signs in UCF, Memphis, Cincinnati, Fresno State, Houston, East Carolina and Northern Illinois. I also see they have a couple more darlings at the FCS in Eastern Washington and North Dakota State.

Preaching to the choir. I'm the guy that says the AAC will go to 20 teams with four divisions of five AND their own conference tournament from which their champion will receive an auto bid to the future expanded College Football Playoff.

The only way a 20-team AAC of any configuration gets an auto-bid to a future expanded CFP is if all the other existing FBS conferences do as well. There is no possible 20-team AAC configuration that could be so valuable as to command inclusion with the P5 in an auto-bid category and yet leave the rest of the G5 (or whatever number of "Gs" exist at the time) behind without it. Not any, no matter how wild one's imagination in creating it is.

Under the current landscape, the current AAC with the top 6 from the MW would likely get the G5 access slot every year. That's about as close to being AQ as a G5 league can get for now. However, if the CFP goes to 8, I could see the G5 slot becoming a playoff slot instead of an access bowl slot. Again, a AAC-MW combo would command the slot so often, the result would be quite similar to being AQ.

Create a new conference with the likes of these schools.
Boise State
Fresno State
San Diego State
Eastern Washington
UNR
Colorado State
Air Force
North Dakota State
Houston
UTSA
UTEP
Memphis
La. Tech
La.-Lafayette
Arkansas State
Northern Illinois
Central Michigan
Ohio U.
Cincinnati
Toledo
NAVY
Army
UCF
East Carolina
Georgia Southern
Appalachian State
Texas State
Ball State

This way, you get the best, and the others on the outside will have to refigure into a much better alliance.

Southern Conference had 27 members which included ACC and SEC members at one time.