Shots fired

[Rolltide94]

I'm not arguing that G5 teams should not have to play stronger schedules to contend for the playoffs. I want rules that define what it takes and makes those schedules available to G5 teams without having to accept competitive disadvantages indefinitely. From there, it is up to those teams to win.

They are G5 teams, they are at a competitive disadvantage indefinitely by the very definition of being a G5 team. For the few G5 teams that wish to be considered as something more than what they are, they should have to show that they are more than what they are. Show me a playoff team that has made the playoffs without beating a ranked P5 opponent, actually multiple ranked P5 opponents, we should except no less from a G5 team that wants consideration.

I'm sorry, but scheduling a pair of North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Pitt and Stanford and hoping one of them is ranked when you play them is just weak, adding an FCS opponent in addition to your shitty G5 conference schedule is insulting. North Carolina and Georgia Tech could both be top 5 teams in 2020, but it sure wouldn't be something I would make a bet on.

Nobody owes UCF or any other team anything, if they want it, they are going to have to earn it. Their entire conference went 7-16 against P5 teams last year, with their 7 wins coming against teams that went a combined 35-52, with only one win against a team with a winning record, 7-6 Georgia Tech.

Their 16 losses included losing to every ranked team they played from another conference, by an average score of 34-11. Including UCF's loss to LSU.

But, we are supposed to pretend that the best of that is worthy of playoff consideration, because they beat all those other AAC teams that couldn't beat anybody, lol, might as well let the Sun Belt champ in too.

 

[CJH9972]

They are G5 teams, they are at a competitive disadvantage indefinitely by the very definition of being a G5 team. For the few G5 teams that wish to be considered as something more than what they are, they should have to show that they are more than what they are. Show me a playoff team that has made the playoffs without beating a ranked P5 opponent, actually multiple ranked P5 opponents, we should except no less from a G5 team that wants consideration.

I'm sorry, but scheduling a pair of North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Pitt and Stanford and hoping one of them is ranked when you play them is just weak, adding an FCS opponent in addition to your shitty G5 conference schedule is insulting. North Carolina and Georgia Tech could both be top 5 teams in 2020, but it sure wouldn't be something I would make a bet on.

Nobody owes UCF or any other team anything, if they want it, they are going to have to earn it. Their entire conference went 7-16 against P5 teams last year, with their 7 wins coming against teams that went a combined 35-52, with only one win against a team with a winning record, 7-6 Georgia Tech.

Their 16 losses included losing to every ranked team they played from another conference, by an average score of 34-11. Including UCF's loss to LSU.

But, we are supposed to pretend that the best of that is worthy of playoff consideration, because they beat all those other AAC teams that couldn't beat anybody, lol, might as well let the Sun Belt champ in too.

While I could make the case for 2017 UCF compared the three non power teams that have made the top four with polls and the BCS, I'm not arguing against G5 teams having to playing challenging schedules to make the playoffs. I'm for rules that define what beats what so that all teams and especially G5 teams can schedule accordingly and leave their fate up to how they and their opponents fare according to actual rules rather the biased perceptions of voters. I'm not arguing that 98 Tulane, 2007 Hawaii, or 2016 Western Michigan played playoff quality schedules.

 

[Rolltide94]

While I could make the case for 2017 UCF compared the three non power teams that have made the top four with polls and the BCS, I'm not arguing against G5 teams having to playing challenging schedules to make the playoffs. I'm for rules that define what beats what so that all teams and especially G5 teams can schedule accordingly and leave their fate up to how they and their opponents fare according to actual rules rather the biased perceptions of voters. I'm not arguing that 98 Tulane, 2007 Hawaii, or 2016 Western Michigan played playoff quality schedules.

Prior to the Auburn game, the argument for 2017 UCF is equally weak, it's still weak after the Auburn game, but before is a joke. They beat no one who was ranked outside their conference and no one in their conference beat anyone that was ranked outside their conference....just one big AAC monkey fucking an AAC football. 3 teams in the AAC won 10 games in 2017...all were ranked, collectively they beat 4-8 Maryland, 6-7 UCLA and 2-10 Illinois during the regular season, every other AAC got their shit pushed in by EVERY P5 team they played....consider me underwhelmed.

Then during the bowl games they beat 3 loss Auburn by 7, 6-7 Texas Tech by 3 and lost to 8-5 Iowa State by 1. Sounds like a playoff team to me, lol, how were either of these other bumblefucks even in the top 25. Shades of Boise over Oklahoma....The AAC is milking that Auburn win for all it is worth.

You want unbiased results on the field to matter, but the actual results on the field suck ass, one win over a ranked team not in the AAC in two years.

 

[CJH9972]

Prior to the Auburn game, the argument for 2017 UCF is equally weak, it's still weak after the Auburn game, but before is a joke. They beat no one who was ranked outside their conference and no one in their conference beat anyone that was ranked outside their conference....just one big AAC monkey fucking an AAC football. 3 teams in the AAC won 10 games in 2017...all were ranked, collectively they beat 4-8 Maryland, 6-7 UCLA and 2-10 Illinois during the regular season, every other AAC got their shit pushed in by EVERY P5 team they played....consider me underwhelmed.

Then during the bowl games they beat 3 loss Auburn by 7, 6-7 Texas Tech by 3 and lost to 8-5 Iowa State by 1. Sounds like a playoff team to me, lol, how were either of these other bumblefucks even in the top 25. Shades of Boise over Oklahoma....The AAC is milking that Auburn win for all it is worth.

You want unbiased results on the field to matter, but the actual results on the field suck ass, one win over a ranked team not in the AAC in two years.

P5 teams get away with only beating ranked teams in conference play too and fewer than three as well.

 

[Rolltide94]

P5 teams get away with only beating ranked teams in conference play too and fewer than three as well.

Great...those teams don't make the playoffs either...and when did UCF ever beat 3 ranked teams during the regular season?

Nobody in their conference beats unranked P5 teams either...6-17, lol. The best team that any of those teams have beaten during the regular season in 2 years is 7-7 Pitt, lol.

Congrats on pimping out a team whose greatest accomplishments are beating one 3 loss P5 team by a touchdown and losing to another by a touchdown.

 

[CJH9972]

Great...those teams don't make the playoffs either...and when did UCF ever beat 3 ranked teams during the regular season?

Nobody in their conference beats unranked P5 teams either...6-17, lol. The best team that any of those teams have beaten during the regular season in 2 years is 7-7 Pitt, lol.

Congrats on pimping out a team whose greatest accomplishments are beating one 3 loss P5 team by a touchdown and losing to another by a touchdown.

Yes. P5 teams make the playoffs without beating ranked OOC competition. 2017 UCF had three ranked wins during the regular season.

 

[Rolltide94]

Yes. P5 teams make the playoffs without beating ranked OOC competition. 2017 UCF had three ranked wins during the regular season.

Yes, some do, most don't. P5 teams shouldn't have to compensate for their conference schedule, because they are already playing 9-10 games against teams that have more talent on their roster than any AAC team. Even the Kansas and Vanderbilts of P5 conferences regularly out recruit the likes of UCF...never mind Tulsa or SMU.

Does beating the same team twice, when they weren't ranked the first time and barely held on to their ranking...which was never deserved in the first place count?...kudos to them, play no one, beat no one, get ranked.

You can pretend that there isn't a talent gap all you want, but there is not a single G5 team that has a 5 year average recruiting class that breaks into the top 50.

 

[LawDawg]

Not what I'm doing at all. They cannot compete for talent under a system rigged against their teams. If you have a choice between playing for any P5 team and knowing you control your destiny for making the playoffs and any G5 team where 40+ years of FBS shows you are eliminated before you begin beyond accomplishing results no G5 team has ever accomplished, where you going to go? The format in place keeps the two class system in place.

Which is why the answer is to split the two and let the G5 have their own playoff. It's not to drag down the P5's quality of CFP by allowing a lesser team or team into the system. This isn't really hard to understand.

 

[theboardref]

Which is why the answer is to split the two and let the G5 have their own playoff. It's not to drag down the P5's quality of CFP by allowing a lesser team or team into the system. This isn't really hard to understand.

Won’t happen. Smaller schools rely on the big payday the Power 5 teams bring in. Think about it, why would smaller schools be ok with the BCS? The reason is every year, regardless who was in those conferences were making cash off of a product their teams were’t putting on the field. BCS brought millions to conferences who wouldn’t otherwise see a penny. If they did make it in, Boise and TCU, add in some more cash to the conferences pay day.

 

[Rolltide94]

Won’t happen. Smaller schools rely on the big payday the Power 5 teams bring in. Think about it, why would smaller schools be ok with the BCS? The reason is every year, regardless who was in those conferences were making cash off of a product their teams were’t putting on the field. BCS brought millions to conferences who wouldn’t otherwise see a penny. If they did make it in, Boise and TCU, add in some more cash to the conferences pay day.

Not only will it not happen, but they don't want it to happen. Despite what that dickwad at UCF keeps droning on about, the G5 teams are quite happy suckling at mama's teat....because they know all the other teats are dried up old saggy cake decorating bag teats.

There is no call for their own playoffs because they know they are tier II schools with zero possibility of making it on their own, because there is no money in it.

 

[theboardref]

Not only will it not happen, but they don't want it to happen. Despite what that dickwad at UCF keeps droning on about, the G5 teams are quite happy suckling at mama's teat....because they know all the other teats are dried up old saggy cake decorating bag teats.

There is no call for their own playoffs because they know they are tier II schools with zero possibility of making it on their own, because there is no money in it.

If they made their own playoff, even the champion would likely make substantially less than never making to the FBS Playoff.

 

[CJH9972]

Yes, some do, most don't. P5 teams shouldn't have to compensate for their conference schedule, because they are already playing 9-10 games against teams that have more talent on their roster than any AAC team. Even the Kansas and Vanderbilts of P5 conferences regularly out recruit the likes of UCF...never mind Tulsa or SMU.

Does beating the same team twice, when they weren't ranked the first time and barely held on to their ranking...which was never deserved in the first place count?...kudos to them, play no one, beat no one, get ranked.

You can pretend that there isn't a talent gap all you want, but there is not a single G5 team that has a 5 year average recruiting class that breaks into the top 50.

I'm not disputing any talent gap. Superior talent is a competitive advantage towards accomplishing what any possible objective rules value. It does not dictate value in objectively determined competitions. Unfortunately, college football is a beauty contest sport that values perceptions over facts.

 

[LawDawg]

Won’t happen. Smaller schools rely on the big payday the Power 5 teams bring in. Think about it, why would smaller schools be ok with the BCS? The reason is every year, regardless who was in those conferences were making cash off of a product their teams were’t putting on the field. BCS brought millions to conferences who wouldn’t otherwise see a penny. If they did make it in, Boise and TCU, add in some more cash to the conferences pay day.

I'm not sure I understand your post ... they could still play P5 teams throughout the year. But, at the end of year they have their own bowl tie ins and have a 4 team playoff. As a whole, they would make more money that one or two teams occasionally getting into a NYD 6 bowl. What am I missing?

 

[theboardref]

I'm not sure I understand your post ... they could still play P5 teams throughout the year. But, at the end of year they have their own bowl tie ins and have a 4 team playoff. As a whole, they would make more money that one or two teams occasionally getting into a NYD 6 bowl. What am I missing?

When I was in high school/college I wrote literally 5-6 papers on similar topics on anything from the BCS to athlete compensation and conference monetary distribution. So while I am by no means trying to call myself an expert, to say i have pretty extensive knowledge I think would be a fair statement, while not giving myself too much credit. The smaller conferences would lose way too much money if they separated.

First thing, what sponsors want to pay to have their name on a secondary playoff series? For that matter, do you think ESPN would shell out major cash for it? I sure don’t.

Second, I am not going to tell you I have done nearly as much research into the playoffs and their cash distribution, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts it is damn similar. So each conference regardless of what teams play, get a huge chunk of cash. That money is given to every school in the conference. Obviously if a school makes it into the semi’s or finals they make significantly more. Also if a conference is in the games, they get more cash. With that said, these smaller conferences still make money, a ton of it, just from watching the playoffs on the outside looking in.

This cash is distributed to all teams. And while smaller conferences are given less money (because their teams aren’t on the field), it is still a ton of money. Think about it, has this even been in discussion by any of the smaller conferences? Have we heard any legitimate rustlings of this? No. Why?

The cash they make from being by standards in this system so significantly outweighs what even the champion of a non-aq playoff would make that this hasn’t even been considered by these smaller conferences.

 

[LawDawg]

When I was in high school/college I wrote literally 5-6 papers on similar topics on anything from the BCS to athlete compensation and conference monetary distribution. So while I am by no means trying to call myself an expert, to say i have pretty extensive knowledge I think would be a fair statement, while not giving myself too much credit. The smaller conferences would lose way too much money if they separated.

First thing, what sponsors want to pay to have their name on a secondary playoff series? For that matter, do you think ESPN would shell out major cash for it? I sure don’t.

Second, I am not going to tell you I have done nearly as much research into the playoffs and their cash distribution, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts it is damn similar. So each conference regardless of what teams play, get a huge chunk of cash. That money is given to every school in the conference. Obviously if a school makes it into the semi’s or finals they make significantly more. Also if a conference is in the games, they get more cash. With that said, these smaller conferences still make money, a ton of it, just from watching the playoffs on the outside looking in.

This cash is distributed to all teams. And while smaller conferences are given less money (because their teams aren’t on the field), it is still a ton of money. Think about it, has this even been in discussion by any of the smaller conferences? Have we heard any legitimate rustlings of this? No. Why?

The cash they make from being by standards in this system so significantly outweighs what even the champion of a non-aq playoff would make that this hasn’t even been considered by these smaller conferences.

I don't think I was clear. When I say split, I mean for a playoff only. They would still be where they are, same conferences, playing P5 teams ... well except for UCF. Could even play in crappy bowls unless they get in the G5 equivalent CFP.

ESPN covers the toilet bowl on December 18, so I am pretty sure they would cover it.

Don't know the particulars, and it really doesn't interest me any more than the G5 do in general. Just thinking that they could do their own playoff somehow and that would give them something to shoot for.

 

[theboardref]

I don't think I was clear. When I say split, I mean for a playoff only. They would still be where they are, same conferences, playing P5 teams ... well except for UCF. Could even play in crappy bowls unless they get in the G5 equivalent CFP.

ESPN covers the toilet bowl on December 18, so I am pretty sure they would cover it.

Don't know the particulars, and it really doesn't interest me any more than the G5 do in general. Just thinking that they could do their own playoff somehow and that would give them something to shoot for.

I can’t explain it any better man.

Short and sweet version: millions are on the line (which smaller programs need to run their entire athletic department), G5 don’t want to lose that money and claiming a group of 5 title isn’t worth the monetary losses.

 

[theboardref]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...yoff-payouts-by-conference-for-2017-2018/amp/

 

[LawDawg]

I can’t explain it any better man.

Short and sweet version: millions are on the line (which smaller programs need to run their entire athletic department), G5 don’t want to lose that money and claiming a group of 5 title isn’t worth the monetary losses.

Understand I am not trying to be argumentative, nor am I saying you are wrong. I am just trying to figure out how they lose any money they are now getting. Under my scenario:

- Regular season doesn't change at all.
- 4 best G5 teams will play in a play off, obviously involving 3 games.
- All other G5 teams will continue to be eligible to play in the bowl games they are now eligible to play in.
- Nothing else changes.

Where is the money they are losing? UCF got $4 million for the Peach Bowl. That's the only thing that would go away in my scenario, but I would have to believe the G5 NC game would garner more than that?

 

[Rolltide94]

I don't think I was clear. When I say split, I mean for a playoff only. They would still be where they are, same conferences, playing P5 teams ... well except for UCF. Could even play in crappy bowls unless they get in the G5 equivalent CFP.

ESPN covers the toilet bowl on December 18, so I am pretty sure they would cover it.

Don't know the particulars, and it really doesn't interest me any more than the G5 do in general. Just thinking that they could do their own playoff somehow and that would give them something to shoot for.

ESPN covers the "toilet" bowl on December the 18th because they own it...and 14 other shitty bowls. They own them because getting someone else to put them on was becoming problematic because there isn't any money in putting on bowls that nobody wants to watch or attend.

The only reason the shitty bowls works is because:

1) teams are willing to take less in payout than it cost them to attend because they get other benefits, like extra practice time.
2) ESPN tries to sell enough seats in the stands for the event to break even...but the demand for Bumfuck St vs Somwhere U is limited, so as a whole, they don't actually turn a profit at the gate.
2) ESPN doesn't have to pay anyone broadcast rights, because they own the "toilet" bowl.
3) ESPN can sell way more ads for a live game broadcast than for a rerun of World's Strongest Man.

All of this results in a break even situation for ESPN on the bowls that it owns.

You say it really doesn't interest you...guess what, it really doesn't interest anyone else either.

ESPN isn't going to pay out anymore money to Broadcast UCF vs Western Michigan in the 1st round of the G5 playoffs than they would for Oklahoma St vs Mississippi ST in the Academy Sports + Outdoors Texas Bowl...which is to say NOTHING.

At best...you might get some extra money for a one off bowl that would put the two best G5 teams together....but the amount would be way less than a NY6 bowl....and I can assure you that no G5 who had a shot at a NY6 Bowl would pass it up to play in that shitfest, and there would be even less money to see the #2 vs #3 G5 teams play.

 

[Rolltide94]

Understand I am not trying to be argumentative, nor am I saying you are wrong. I am just trying to figure out how they lose any money they are now getting. Under my scenario:

- Regular season doesn't change at all.
- 4 best G5 teams will play in a play off, obviously involving 3 games.
- All other G5 teams will continue to be eligible to play in the bowl games they are now eligible to play in.
- Nothing else changes.

Where is the money they are losing? UCF got $4 million for the Peach Bowl. That's the only thing that would go away in my scenario, but I would have to believe the G5 NC game would garner more than that?

The second best G5 last year was Fresno St....

You think there would be more money for a #8 UCF vs #22 Fresno State for the "G5 Championship" than there was for a #8 UCF vs #11 LSU matchup........

I don't know what to say to that....other than I'm sorry about your traumatic brain injury.