(07-02-2021 10:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: (07-01-2021 10:36 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: Get out of the Boise bowl and line up a true #1 bowl arrangement for the MAC Champion.
Its called goals Bruce. I talk about a 7th champion access bowl or sending the champ to the Independence bowl as a goal over the present bowl arrangement.
You did more than just set out aspirational goals, you set out an action plan for achieving the goal which wouldn't achieve the goal and which would harm the credibility of the MAC as a partner in future negotiations to achieve the goal.
I already said that a 7th champion access bowl would be nice, so we agree on it as an aspirational goal. But if ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. If the action plan you set out to achieve that aspiration is not workable, the fact that it would be nice is not a defense of an unworkable action plan.
Quote: As to the CFP money share since you want to talk about that I believe unlikely that when all revenue split factors are taken into consideration (base conference distribution, appearance money, APR money) that it will work out to be exactly the same as it was before.
Of course it will not "
work out" to be exactly the same as it was before. But if the MAC does not engage effectively in the process, it is at risk of being much lower than if it does engage effectively. So this is not the time to be diverting time and effort to aiming for pie in the sky. This is the time to be sticking the nose to the grindstone and pushing for the best deal the MAC can get.
If the deal is triple the value and the best the Go5 can get is a 150% increase, that still supports going from $10m base per conference to $25m base per conference, which is $2m+ per MAC school. That's more money than a buy game: indeed, wouldn't it be great for MAC schools that have two or three buy games to be able to cut back on one of their buy games and increase their Go5 H/A games by one?
Quote: I'm more concerned an undefeated or 1 loss MAC Champion will be left out of the playoff with nothing because it won't get ranked in the Top 12 by the CFP committee and it won't be a Top 6 conference champion because the P5 + AAC will be ahead of it. What then is plan B going to be for the MAC Champion?
I agree that working out a better post season place for the MAC is a worthwhile goal. If I didn't, I wouldn't take the time to think through whether your proposals for doing so are workable.
You are not going to get the AAC and MWC on board with committing to a Champion 7 vs Champion 8 games. They would rather have their champion play an AAC, SEC or PAC-12 school on the edge of eligibility than another Go5 champion.
And you are not going to get the MAC, CUSA or SBC on board with giving up direct bowl affiliations in return for a shot at such a game, since Presidents do
not judge
their bowl eligible team sitting home, in return for the Conference Champion having only a shot of getting into a slightly higher profile game, as being a net win.
The first priority is not leaving any school with a winning season at home, the second priority is a chance to place 6-6 schools.
Getting a shot at a better place for the MAC champion than the most attractive pairing available under the current system ... which for many MAC Presidents might be playing the very last bowl eligible Big Ten school in Detroit, over playing another Go5 champion ... that's going to be the the third priority at best.
So what might be workable, if we set aside "we win the lottery!" daydreams?
Now, one side effect of the 12 team CFP is that it seems likely to devalue the current P5 bowl affiliations of the SEC and BigTen to a certain extent, because they are the most likely to be placing multiple at-large schools in the CFP. So a deal where the highest ranked available champion from the MAC, SBC and CUSA are the back up for a SEC / Big Ten bowl might be workable.
Rather than giving up any firm bowl commitments, just collectively have the MAC / SBC / CUSA place the ESPN pool bowls behind their highest ranked champion commitment to that bowl.
Regarding the Liberty Bowl, shouldering Army aside does not seem likely, but Army is not going to be bowl eligible every year ... especially given that it often has two FCS schools on its schedule, and can only count one FCS win toward bowl eligibility. So a more feasible alternative there is to commit to the highest ranked champion from the MAC, CUSA and SBC to back up Army in the Liberty Bowl. And the PAC-12 looks like, at present, the conference least likely to have multiple at-large schools, so it might actually be able to fill its Liberty Bowl commitment.
But for the risk that it doesn't, that pool could indeed offer to back either or both sides of the primary commitments.