(01-14-2018 10:38 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  jus' my 2 cents . .. whether the G5 Commissioners want it/like it or not, the playoff format will expand . . . 'merica is going to get bored with the same 4 (or mostly the same 4) schools/conferences competing for the NC every year.

An expansion to 8 seems the next logical step . . . eventually interest and MONEY will demand it. The later speaking the loudest.

The past TV ratings show they don't seem to have an issue. Even if the Championship has two teams from the same conference.

(01-13-2018 08:19 AM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 01:33 PM)AppNation85 Wrote:  FIRE BENSON!!!

Guys, let your business brain kick in. For the first time, maybe ever, I agree with Benson and the other G5 AD's. The current funding plan is the best the G5 has ever had and it puts roughly a million dollars plus into the operating funds for each SBC school. If the G5 won approval for an extended playoff, how many of our teams would make the top eight or the top sixteen? I suspect none to maybe one from every few years. A new funding plan would be developed and overall money to the G5 would be reduced in all probability. The P5's have the hugh fan bases and TV wants their games for better viewership and advertising money. They also have the better teams. The AD's know our current arrangement is the best we will have for the next several years. Its too early to want a change in light of the hugh success of the CFP at this point. If you were the AD. would you really want to change a program that puts a million dollars into your school's pocket?

Why would you assume an 8 team playoff means less money? Didnt going from a 2 team to a 4 team playoff result in MORE money? An 8 team playoff would mean more games and very likely greater interest as every single P5 conference champ would be involved as well as a G5 entry. The money would increase for everyone....as would the actual dollar amount gap between G5 pay and P5 pay.

(01-15-2018 03:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-13-2018 08:19 AM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 01:33 PM)AppNation85 Wrote:  FIRE BENSON!!!

Guys, let your business brain kick in. For the first time, maybe ever, I agree with Benson and the other G5 AD's. The current funding plan is the best the G5 has ever had and it puts roughly a million dollars plus into the operating funds for each SBC school. If the G5 won approval for an extended playoff, how many of our teams would make the top eight or the top sixteen? I suspect none to maybe one from every few years. A new funding plan would be developed and overall money to the G5 would be reduced in all probability. The P5's have the hugh fan bases and TV wants their games for better viewership and advertising money. They also have the better teams. The AD's know our current arrangement is the best we will have for the next several years. Its too early to want a change in light of the hugh success of the CFP at this point. If you were the AD. would you really want to change a program that puts a million dollars into your school's pocket?

Why would you assume an 8 team playoff means less money? Didnt going from a 2 team to a 4 team playoff result in MORE money? An 8 team playoff would mean more games and very likely greater interest as every single P5 conference champ would be involved as well as a G5 entry. The money would increase for everyone....as would the actual dollar amount gap between G5 pay and P5 pay.

So, if the money automatically increases for a CFP with four more teams, why not make it 16 teams and get the really big money? And if money increases, why do you thing it would flow down to the G5 conferences? At four, or eight, or sixteen, few if any G5 will ever be selected. It would be more top P5 teams playing and sharing whatever the money happens to be.

(01-15-2018 04:38 AM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  So, if the money automatically increases for a CFP with four more teams, why not make it 16 teams and get the really big money? And if money increases, why do you thing it would flow down to the G5 conferences? At four, or eight, or sixteen, few if any G5 will ever be selected. It would be more top P5 teams playing and sharing whatever the money happens to be.

Well, when you go beyond 3 rounds then you've got more of a scheduling conundrum. Do you want the non-major bowl games to played on the same week as bowl games? Would you have to get rid of the CCGs? The FCS has had more than 3 rounds for a while now and has never had conference championship games and only has 1 bye week a year and 11 regular-season games.

The three-round playoff is easier to squeeze in. And if it brings in more money, how could it possibly mean the G5 doesn't get more money? The payouts went up from the BCS to the G5, so why not?

16 is too many. 1-AA playoffs were best when it was 8 teams. Only 4 times in 37 years has someone outside the top 4 won the 1-AA/FCS championship.

(01-15-2018 11:44 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  16 is too many. 1-AA playoffs were best when it was 8 teams. Only 4 times in 37 years has someone outside the top 4 won the 1-AA/FCS championship.

10 conference champs, 2 wildcards.

P5 should be happy because every P5 conference champ and 2 other P5 will get in. Thats 7 in instead of 4. Plus P5 will nearly always get seeded higher and the top ranked will get byes.

16 is too many.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(01-15-2018 03:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-13-2018 08:19 AM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 01:33 PM)AppNation85 Wrote:  FIRE BENSON!!!

Guys, let your business brain kick in. For the first time, maybe ever, I agree with Benson and the other G5 AD's. The current funding plan is the best the G5 has ever had and it puts roughly a million dollars plus into the operating funds for each SBC school. If the G5 won approval for an extended playoff, how many of our teams would make the top eight or the top sixteen? I suspect none to maybe one from every few years. A new funding plan would be developed and overall money to the G5 would be reduced in all probability. The P5's have the hugh fan bases and TV wants their games for better viewership and advertising money. They also have the better teams. The AD's know our current arrangement is the best we will have for the next several years. Its too early to want a change in light of the hugh success of the CFP at this point. If you were the AD. would you really want to change a program that puts a million dollars into your school's pocket?

Why would you assume an 8 team playoff means less money? Didnt going from a 2 team to a 4 team playoff result in MORE money? An 8 team playoff would mean more games and very likely greater interest as every single P5 conference champ would be involved as well as a G5 entry. The money would increase for everyone....as would the actual dollar amount gap between G5 pay and P5 pay.

As others have pointed out---everyone knows an 8-team or 16-team playoff would result in more money. Its a logistical issue over timing and a problem of devaluing the bowls--who over the decades have wined and dined their way into the good graces of the P5. Lots of stakeholders have to all be sold on the idea.

Frankly, I think 16 is just too big to ever work with the bowls. Eight is the sweet spot. Play the first round the week after Championship Saturday. If you do the first round in the home stadiums of the higher ranked of each pairing--then one week after the current Selection Sunday---you're at the exact same spot you are today (You have a 4 team playoff laid out the same way it is today). In other words, the expansion Im proposing essentially just snaps onto the existing CFP framework with minimal disruption of the current system. In fact, I'd make the first round losers "bowl eligible" so that no bowls are short of picks due to the CFP expansion to 8 teams. Minimal disruption is the key to selling the deal.

(01-15-2018 09:19 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 04:38 AM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  So, if the money automatically increases for a CFP with four more teams, why not make it 16 teams and get the really big money? And if money increases, why do you thing it would flow down to the G5 conferences? At four, or eight, or sixteen, few if any G5 will ever be selected. It would be more top P5 teams playing and sharing whatever the money happens to be.

Well, when you go beyond 3 rounds then you've got more of a scheduling conundrum. Do you want the non-major bowl games to played on the same week as bowl games? Would you have to get rid of the CCGs? The FCS has had more than 3 rounds for a while now and has never had conference championship games and only has 1 bye week a year and 11 regular-season games.

The three-round playoff is easier to squeeze in. And if it brings in more money, how could it possibly mean the G5 doesn't get more money? The payouts went up from the BCS to the G5, so why not?

"how could it possibly mean the G5 doesn't get more money". Same way the last agreement was made. The P5 voted for us to get a share. They can also vote to take our share down or away all together.

(01-15-2018 12:00 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:44 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  16 is too many. 1-AA playoffs were best when it was 8 teams. Only 4 times in 37 years has someone outside the top 4 won the 1-AA/FCS championship.

10 conference champs, 2 wildcards.

P5 should be happy because every P5 conference champ and 2 other P5 will get in. Thats 7 in instead of 4. Plus P5 will nearly always get seeded higher and the top ranked will get byes.

16 is too many.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

The playoffs were at 12 with top 4 seeds getting byes in the 1st round when we were kicked down in 83. With the lack of TV coverage preventing voters from getting a decent look at teams it was a pretty decent system.

Good with 8 just want a chance to make it in. I think with 8 UCF is not intentionally kept out by the committee and they let an undefeated G5 in with a decent schedule like they had.