What if college football’s Group of Five staged their own “mini-playoff” every postseason?

[WoodysGirl]

The Group of Five receives just one spot in college football’s “New Year’s Six” bowl structure each year. So while Western Michigan tries to complete a 14-0 season against Wisconsin in this year’s Cotton Bowl, the rest of the G5 will be busy playing in lesser bowls.
Just because those games are earlier on the schedule, however, it doesn’t mean they lack importance. In fact, the G5 has provided quite the intriguing lineup for the 2016-17 bowl season. Some of the highlights:

Las Vegas Bowl: Houston vs. San Diego State

Camelia Bowl: Appalachian State vs. Toledo


Poinsettia Bowl: BYU vs. Wyoming

Armed Forces Bowl: Louisiana Tech vs. Navy

And there are plenty more intriguing matchups down the line as well.

These games, while not “playoff” games, sort of serve as de facto elimination games to see which G5 schools are the best of the rest, so to speak. WMU already earned its title atop the non-power conferences, but the others still put in quality seasons of their own. Many of them get to prove it this year, not against a ninth-place SEC team or a sixth-place Pac-12 squad, but against other strong programs from the sport’s supposedly lesser leagues.

Read the rest: http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/group-of-five-playoff-college-football-bowl-games.html

 

[jterrell]

would be very smart imho. a money maker.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I would prefer to watch something like that instead of the meaningless bowl games over the next week or so.

 

[csirl]

How about a proper playoff system - works in D2 and D3 football?

 

[bounce]

How about a proper playoff system - works in D2 and D3 football?

Why? The purpose of the 4-team playoff is to decide who the best team is, because sometimes there's a question about it among two or even three teams - because they all have identical undefeated records, played different competition, etc. Expanding it doesn't determine who the best team is, it shows who played the best on a certain day. That's great in the NFL, but that's not how the NCAA works.

There are only a few teams that have a legit claim to the top four spots. If you expand it to 8, 16, etc teams, there are a lot more teams laying claim for their "right" to be in one of those later playoff spots. A lot of 2 or 3 loss teams are going to be claiming they have a right to be in the top 16 over a one loss team in the top 4. The system works as well as it can for a league with 116+ teams.

 

[csirl]

Picking the final 4 based on polls is so wrong from a sporting perspective. There should be a playoff system where (1) qualification is automatic based on where a team finishes in its conference and (2) all teams in the division can theoretically qualify. Otherwise it has no credibility.

 

[yimyammer]

If you expand it to 8, 16, etc teams, there are a lot more teams laying claim for their "right" to be in one of those later playoff spots.

fine with me, the more the merrier, I'd love to see 32 teams and get rid of the stupid bowl system (they could assign the bowl names to each state of the playoffs). I think more teams & playoffs would be entertaining as hell. Outside of the new playoffs for the top 4, the bowls are boring as hell (imo) and I dont buy that the kids cant handle playing more games.

FYI-this is my opinion of what I'd love to watch from an entertainment standpoint and don't expect anything close to this to happen in my lifetime nor am I trying to convince you (or anyone else) to agree with me.

 

[LocimusPrime]

I'd love a 32 team playoffs as well. It would be sweet at Texas tea

 

[coogrfan]

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...ficials-considering-playoff-non-power-5-teams

"Absolutely would not want a separate playoff," said a Group of 5 AD, "and I can't put enough exclamation points behind that."

American Conference commissioner Mike Aresco has no interest in it either.

"The answer is an emphatic no," Aresco said. "We compete for national championships like anyone else in FBS, including the Power 5, and have no interest in any kind of separate championship."

The Group of 5 officials that favor a Group of 5 championship acknowledge several factors would have to be resolved: how much the playoff would be worth, how would it impact the Group of 5's automatic bid to a New Year's 6 bowl, what bowls and how many teams would be involved.

Some officials are concerned a separate national title would perpetuate the perception of the haves and have-nots between the Power 5 and Group of 5.

"You mean compete for a junior varsity championship?" one Group of 5 AD said. "No thanks."

 

[jterrell]

Why? The purpose of the 4-team playoff is to decide who the best team is, because sometimes there's a question about it among two or even three teams - because they all have identical undefeated records, played different competition, etc. Expanding it doesn't determine who the best team is, it shows who played the best on a certain day. That's great in the NFL, but that's not how the NCAA works.

There are only a few teams that have a legit claim to the top four spots. If you expand it to 8, 16, etc teams, there are a lot more teams laying claim for their "right" to be in one of those later playoff spots. A lot of 2 or 3 loss teams are going to be claiming they have a right to be in the top 16 over a one loss team in the top 4. The system works as well as it can for a league with 116+ teams.

Have to disagree with this about as much as anyhing on here.

In every other sport we play in the NCAA level, there are playoffs to determine the champion.
This method does NOT do that.
It takes 4 teams PERCEIVED to be the best and we've already seen a heavy bias to big name schools and nominal rationale that changes yearly.

The NFL is pretty damn successful, yet feels no need to make 16 games determine it champion or even it's top 4.

You know how many former D1 college football players would have liked the chance to play in an actual playoff system?
More meaningful games, more money, more fan following.

The system should be AT LEAST 8 teams to get the 1 loss in teams and P5 conf champs.

I've heard every argument possible for this stuff but reality is playoff reigns supreme EVERY where else and the3re is zero indication a playoff would be unsuccessful if expanded to 8 or 16.

I'd actually support an 8 team G5 playoff and a 16 team P5 playoff. You'd incorporate many Bowl games into that structure.

 

[jterrell]

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...ficials-considering-playoff-non-power-5-teams

"Absolutely would not want a separate playoff," said a Group of 5 AD, "and I can't put enough exclamation points behind that."

American Conference commissioner Mike Aresco has no interest in it either.

"The answer is an emphatic no," Aresco said. "We compete for national championships like anyone else in FBS, including the Power 5, and have no interest in any kind of separate championship."

The Group of 5 officials that favor a Group of 5 championship acknowledge several factors would have to be resolved: how much the playoff would be worth, how would it impact the Group of 5's automatic bid to a New Year's 6 bowl, what bowls and how many teams would be involved.

Some officials are concerned a separate national title would perpetuate the perception of the haves and have-nots between the Power 5 and Group of 5.

"You mean compete for a junior varsity championship?" one Group of 5 AD said. "No thanks."

reality is G5 are playing for NOTHING right now.
they have an infinitesimally small chance at winning an NCAA Div 1 CFP series.
so they are tucked away in bowls no one watches or cares about.
but an actual playoff? people outside those schools would watch.

the AAC would immediately become much more financially viable.

 

[coogrfan]

reality is G5 are playing for NOTHING right now.
they have an infinitesimally small chance at winning an NCAA Div 1 CFP series.
so they are tucked away in bowls no one watches or cares about.
but an actual playoff? people outside those schools would watch.

the AAC would immediately become much more financially viable.

Dr. M. David Rudd
Dr. M. David Rudd – ‏@UofMemphisPres

Working on 2016 ten worst ideas list, struggling a bit. Then ran across idea of a G5 national FB playoff. Takes the top spot. Actually 1-10.

 

[coogrfan]

There is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. The general public would see this as nothing more than a process designed to crown the 67th best team in college football. It's a horrible idea.


I doubt a G5 playoff would pay very much to be honest with you. I don't know the exact figures, but everything I have read indicates ESPN pays the FCS next to nothing for their playoffs; with most of their athletic department revenue coming from ticket sales, student subsidy and alumni donations.

I think in the best case scenario the G5 playoff would earn the schools an extra couple hundred thousand; but would be offset by losses in ticket sales, sponsorship and alumni contributions (because you are basically admitting you are FCS).

 

[jterrell]

There is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. The general public would see this as nothing more than a process designed to crown the 67th best team in college football. It's a horrible idea.


I doubt a G5 playoff would pay very much to be honest with you. I don't know the exact figures, but everything I have read indicates ESPN pays the FCS next to nothing for their playoffs; with most of their athletic department revenue coming from ticket sales, student subsidy and alumni donations.

I think in the best case scenario the G5 playoff would earn the schools an extra couple hundred thousand; but would be offset by losses in ticket sales, sponsorship and alumni contributions (because you are basically admitting you are FCS).

Lots of people believe lots of things but none of that changes fact Group of 5 schools are playing for zero right now.
They are ALREADY assumed to be the 67th best team before the season even starts.

No G5 school is getting in when there are perfectly good SEC/B1G teams such that would jump them even with TWO more losses.

And comparing a group of 5 to FCS is stupid as hell. FCS has almost zero games on actual TV before the playoffs. Would it pay half of what the CFP does? Probably not.Would it pay 1/3 or 1/4? Almost certainly.

"It's time to have a realistic conversation about creating a playoff for the Group of 5," Northern Illinois athletic director Sean Frazier said to ESPN. "Why not?

"There is absolutely no ability for us (teams in the Group of 5) to be in that national title conversation. That's just reality. Anyone that says we can: that's a flat-out lie."

This season, Western Michigan finished 13–0 and 15th in the College Football Playoff Top 25 and will play Wisconsin in the Cotton Bowl.

No Group of Five school has even come close to cracking the four-team playoff in the three years of its existence.

Soooo, you can take a group of 5 playoff and hold it with whatever teams do NOT make the CFP. You'd lose the top team each year but still have everyone else and it is nothing but additional TV games and revenue.

Industry sources notes CBS. ESPN and NBC all had interest in a G5 playoff. That's everyone BUT FOX and with interest among multiple networks revenue would be fine.

Status quo is for scared little children. And only scared little children would be happy playing for nothing. Last non P5 school to win a national title was insanely rich BYU in 1984.

The Group of Five should immediately start looking at this and talking to TV execs. Even beginning the conversation would be leverage with the P5 and likely force a move to 6+ CFP playoff teams where the top G5 team has a guaranteed slot.

 

[coogrfan]

"Playing for nothing"?

WMU didn't garner serious consideration by the playoff committee because of their schedule. Houston, otoh, was ranked 15th in the preseason poll, and moved up as high as 6th before losing to Navy. If UH had run the table the committee would have placed in the extremely awkward situation of having to explain how an undefeated team with two wins over top 5 P5's was not worthy of a playoff spot.

Bottom line: the myth of P5 superiority is just that. What we need to do is push for inclusion via an 8 team playoff.

 

[jterrell]

"Playing for nothing"?

WMU didn't garner serious consideration by the playoff committee because of their schedule. Houston, otoh, was ranked 15th in the preseason poll, and moved up as high as 6th before losing to Navy. If UH had run the table the committee would have placed in the extremely awkward situation of having to explain how an undefeated team with two wins over top 5 P5's was not worthy of a playoff spot.

Bottom line: the myth of P5 superiority is just that. What we need to do is push for inclusion via an 8 team playoff.

I am on the side of the little guy to be sure but HOU only made that rating by being really really good multiple seasons.
Beating FSU handily the year prior in a bowl game was the catalyst.
But again it's been since 1984 a non P5 won the title.
If the G5 wants leverage it needs to start talking it's own playoff.

Right now it is the little cousin, offering much desired/needed football content for networks at a fraction of the price of P5.
And P5 flexes it's muscles constantly.
Coaches like PJ Fleck can talk nonsense crap but then what? He's gonna likely be gone to P5 by the end of the friggin week.
G5 needs to force a real seat at the playoff table and best way is examine and talk up network then work with P5 members who support expanded CFP.

 

[coogrfan]

http://www.capitalgazette.com/sports/navy_sports/ph-ac-cs-g5-playoff-follow-0107-20170106-story.html

In (Navy AD Chet) Gladchuk's view, creating a Group of Five playoff would play right into the hands of the Power Five along with the television networks.

"It would be television's delight. Because the TV folks could throw a couple bones to the munchkins to keep them at bay. It would be a self-declaration that the Group of Five is a second tier operation and should realize only second tier money," Gladchuk said. "You're admitting to an inferior product, and Navy has no interest in associating with that type of lack of ambition."

Gladchuk literally laughed out loud when asked if he had discussed the Group of Five playoff concept with Navy head coach Ken Niumatalolo. "I'd rather rake the leaves! I'm not going to waste his time and my time even talking about it," he said.

Niumatalolo, who is currently visiting family in Hawaii, responded via text to a request for comment on the issue. "We have absolutely zero interest in a Group of Five playoff."

By contrast, Gladchuk is more interested in promoting increased access to the College Football Playoff for Group of Five members.

"In my judgment, the only dialogue we should be having involves replacing the New Year's Six with the New Year's Eight," he said. "Let's go in that direction and think in a proactive and positive way."

Since the ESPN article appeared, not a single president, commissioner, athletic director or head coach from a Group of Five school has come forward to support the idea of a separate playoff tournament.

Western Michigan head coach P.J. Fleck called the concept "ridiculous" and said he loves the way the Power Five and Group of Five mix. Marshall athletic director Mike Hamrick said there has been no discussion among Conference USA officials with regard to a Group of Five playoff.

"I really don't believe it's a serious discussion. I don't believe it's any kind of initiative at all.

I think it was simply one athletic director who spoke out to the media on this issue," Aresco said. "As far as I know, there have been no discussions about this at any level. Based off my conversations with commissioners of the other Group of Five conferences, there is no support whatsoever for this idea."

Aresco, who was previously an executive with CBS Sports, was asked if television networks were behind the push for a Group of Five playoff. After all, the original article appeared on an ESPN platform and insinuated there was a groundswell of support for the concept when in fact it was only one athletic director and one anonymous Group of Five "official."

"I have no reason to believe ESPN is behind this. Brett McMurphy is an excellent reporter and he simply wrote about something a few athletic directors are talking about. We've never had one discussion with ESPN about this," Aresco said. "I hope this silly idea goes away really quickly. There is no movement on this. Some of the articles suggested there was a concerted initiative and ongoing discussion and that's just not true. This suggestion came up a couple years ago and we vetoed it right away."