G5s Finally Getting Together......Talking About Their Future

NT80 · April 24

29 minutes ago, wardly said:

I would mirror the existing 1AA football playoff system using the minor bowls as sites simply because this would be the path of least resistance. There is no way the G6 programs are included in the P4 playoff plans when they spin off. Once that is accomplished then you approach geographical conference realignment with the understanding that it is going to be a hard sell. The P4 schools could be called D1, G6 schools D1A, with the existing 1AA classification remaining the same. It works in high school and would work in college as well. Schools could be classified either by NIL funds or total athletic budget. Based upon historical alumni giving North Texas will struggle to be competitive in NIL funding.

The 1AA playoffs only work because there are home games involved for higher seeds in each round. Using minor Bowls or neutral sites would add huge costs plus more travel and kill attendance.

MAX KOCH · April 24

13 hours ago, SUMG said:

If you read that second story....it seems there would be 8 team divisions. And I love this:

The new divisions would be realigned geographically, in part to benefit Olympic sports.

These spread out leagues....benefit nobody. We could be here 100 years from now....and no one is gonna care about a game against Charlotte.

WORD

Arkstfan · April 24

Some musings.

First, G5 realignment for efficiency? HAHAHAHA yeah that's been bandied around and ain't no one ever bit on it.

I'm very happy with what Sun Belt West looks like, odds are a shuffle gives me something I don't like especially since every let's draw a pretty conference on map nerd out there is convinced Arkansas State belongs in a Texas alignment when its basically same distance to Atlanta as Denton and there's a LOT of schools closer than UNT, the closest G5 in Texas.

Now as to a playoff.

To quote former Sun Belt commissioner Wright Waters when someone asked him if the flavor of the day G5 consortium idea would work, "You only need one network to love you."

If you can get CBS, Fox, NBC, or even ABC/ESPN on board to go all-in and carry the bulk of this tournament on over-the-air TV on Saturdays, then it's going to deliver better audiences than virtually every G5 v G5 bowl game that ever existed.

Bundling a 7 game or 11 game or even 15 game tournament is going to be more efficient and more marketable than TV rights to a bunch of single game bowls and same for sponsorships.

Financially it is more cost effective to send Toledo to Jonesboro on Friday to play Saturday than to send A-State and Toledo both to Montgomery and make them both spend four nights there.

You will sell more tickets presumably to UNT hosting Utah State in Denton than you likely sell for the same game in Tucson or Albuquerque.

The finances start making sense fairly easily.

Here's the critical element to me.

Third Saturday in December has long been G5 Bowl-a-Palooza on TV, that's now first weekend of the CFP with one game Friday and three on Saturday. If ESPN bothers to put any bowls that day, they get swamped and they are probably on ESPN2 or ESPNU.

Fourth Saturday is likely to be flooded with games like the Liberty Bowl and Alamo Bowl P4 vs P4 games. Again if G5 get that slot, it's probably ESPN2 or ESPNU. Maybe get to play bowl games the Saturday after New Years but the competition isn't just NFL, it's NFL playoff football.

The likely outcome is the Texas Twister Tyler Texas Bowl pitting AAC #6 and MAC #3 is going to be played a 2pm on Tuesday before Christmas or such. G5 is likely getting shifted to more weeknight bowl games and maybe more weekday games during work hours.

If that's what's coming down the pike, then fine. Find me a network that will commit to Saturday over-the-air broadcasts in addition to cable channel broadcasts during the four Saturdays that CFP isn't playing.

Probably best scenario is play one week, take a week off then play the next two in consecutive weeks in a 7 game format.

No rocket science involved, top team from each G5 (so four champs plus whomever from the league getting a CFP berth) and three at-large based on whatever arbitrary and senseless ranking one cooks up or if 12 then 7 at-large.

Bowls pretty much fade out and coaches getting laurels for 6-6 and 7-5 not so much any more.

SMU2006 · April 24

14 hours ago, NT80 said:

I fixed it for you and added SMU when the ACC folds!

lol. ACC isn't going anywhere. Thankfully Phillips is the anti-George Kliavkoff and expanded before the proverbial sh*t hit the fan. Media rights deal through 2036. Safe and sound.

TheColonyEagle · April 24

Following up on Arkstfan’s point…..show me the TV money…

Will a network bite on this? I don’t really have pulse either way.

SMU2006 · April 24

13 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

Following up on Arkstfan’s point…..show me the TV money…

Will a network bite on this? I don’t really have pulse either way.

Yes. Live content is still king. All the more reason to move to playing in the spring.

GrandGreen · April 24

Forget it, if NT moves down from D1. Competitive or not; being in the highest official classification has benefits.

NT was in a league like this in the old 1aa days, and it was a nightmare in terms of coverage, support, and financially.

I don't see any rationale why an official separation between P and G teams should happen.

The P's already get most of the money and coverage. What do they have to gain?

greenminer · April 24

14 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

I think interest wans incessantly if this happens. I don't hate the idea of it, but I hate the idea of UNT basically being relegated to how the FCS is generally viewed.

you seem to have zero issue with UNT being viewed with the Armys and Navys of the world, by supporting a move to triple option and trimming the football budget.

So, why does a separate league rub you differently?

NorthTexasWeLove · April 24

28 minutes ago, greenminer said:

you seem to have zero issue with UNT being viewed with the Armys and Navys of the world, by supporting a move to triple option and trimming the football budget.

So, why does a separate league rub you differently?

Viewed with? We're in the same conference with them. We're not viewed with them, we're literally with them.

I don't want to be viewed with ACU, Bethunecookman, Campbell, Citadel, etsu, etc. Moving to the flex doesn't do that.

Arkstfan · April 24

1 hour ago, SMU2006 said:

Yes. Live content is still king. All the more reason to move to playing in the spring.

Let's say 12 teams. That's 11 games.

What is going to produce more straight revenue before considering expenses? 11 bowl games with 22 G5 teams or 11 tournament games involving 12 G5 teams? I think the tournament. Instead of playin for 11 trophies, you are playing for one. Half the teams you see playing this Saturday are playing next Saturday and you start recognizing players and coaches and get more engaged.

So I think replacing 11 bowl games with 12 game tournament is likely to produce more money while costing less to put on because the participants own the stadium, at least until the final, half the teams aren't traveling. The ones that travel are staying one or two days instead of four. You've got no need for a local ticket selling person in each bowl town, the home team does the hustling to sell tickets.

Lower cost more drama. It's made for TV.

I was looking at old AState schedules. 1975, 76, 77, 78, 79 we didn't play any traditional "P5" teams (had a game with Cincinnati in there). Looked at y'all and Memphis and USM and other than USM going Bama nearly every year, there just weren't many go to this place, get a check, go home games, most games against the power programs were depending on the school home/home, 2 for 1, 3 for 1, 4 for 1 deals.

Oddly the "buy games" I found poking around (clicked a link by accident) was LSU bought a game against WAC member Utah and bought a home game against Pac-8 member Oregon State.

When the money got crazy, selling a game to generate revenue became the norm, it just didn't used to be the norm and even an old fart like me had forgotten. The normal buy games you find in that era were things like Tulsa going to Arkansas every year or when A-State was playing in Memphis all the time, you hop on the bus day of the game, play and go home type deals.

We may be heading that direction, not because we choose to live within our capacity to self-generate revenue but because TV is going to squeeze Big Ten and SEC for more conference games and more big non-conference games to get that next bump in money.

If you get to the point they won't play, I like our chances outdrawing UFL, besides we pay better.

Wag Tag · April 24

Would like to see an association with the MWC. This could give us some separation from the C-USA and MAC they can form their own group. Both could have playoffs and a championship.

Cougar King · April 24

Lol UNT is gonna destroy another generation of fans by choosing to go to FCS again.

Salsa_Verde · April 24

Dumb idea.

Wag Tag · April 24

18 hours ago, SMU2006 said:

I think this is inevitable but I would imagine the split is going to come with a ton of caveats.

The best case (realistic) scenario for the G5 is to form their own division and play in the spring. Allow players transferring from P4 to G5 division to be granted immediate eligibility. Without having to fight the P4 for eyeballs in the fall the attention would be solely on the G5 division. How many more people will watch a North Texas game in the early April when there is zero competition?

I would also be very leery of the private equity angle but its at least worth exploring.

I also like the idea of regionalism in this new division. A league consisting of UNT, UTSA, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, LA Tech, UTEP, Texas State, and Arkansas State would be really fun and create easy/affordable travel. It'll take a few years to work out the details but this is where things are headed.

Private equity is going to get involved in all college sports no matter the level. The next step will be High School. You are in a way experiencing it now at SMU, just no return.

Edited April 24 by Wag Tag

greenminer · April 24

5 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

Viewed with? We're in the same conference with them. We're not viewed with them, we're literally with them.

I don't want to be viewed with ACU, Bethunecookman, Campbell, Citadel, etsu, etc. Moving to the flex doesn't do that.

Maybe I missed something, but I thought this playoff idea was not about moving down.

NorthTexasWeLove · April 25

1 hour ago, greenminer said:

Maybe I missed something, but I thought this playoff idea was not about moving down.

You're just bumpin

SMU2006 · April 25

4 hours ago, Wag Tag said:

Private equity is going to get involved in all college sports no matter the level. The next step will be High School. You are in a way experiencing it now at SMU, just no return.

When you have 4-5 billionaires footing the bill you don't care about the ROI.

TheColonyEagle · April 25

19 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Forget it, if NT moves down from D1. Competitive or not; being in the highest official classification has benefits.

NT was in a league like this in the old 1aa days, and it was a nightmare in terms of coverage, support, and financially.

I don't see any rationale why an official separation between P and G teams should happen.

The P's already get most of the money and coverage. What do they have to gain?

But I don't see this a move down....more of a "not moving up"

For this to take shape, you have to assume that the "highest official classification" is going to change. It's gonna be 30-40 teams. This isn't like going FCS in the '80s. It's not even close....the entire landscape has changed. NIL, transfer portal, ESPN, media.....nothing today resembles 1988.

The "highest official classification" is just a label. It's unofficially the SEC/Big 10 now...even the Big 12 is not stable...P5 is going to P2. We have to stop thinking that because an Oregon State has "always been a Power conference school" that they will continue to be one. Boston College? SMU? LOL. The math has changed. Alabama, Ohio State and Texas are so far removed from the lower P5s and G5s that snow ball is moving at warp speed down the mountain. Them along with ESPN run college football now and what they want, they will get. I don't think Ohio State really cares about Washington St....

We (current G5 plus the P5 "hanger ons") aren't going to be able to keep up with this new world...

I think this proposal is a new classification...not moving down to an existing one.

Just my humble opinion....

SMU2006 · April 25

14 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

But I don't see this a move down....more of a "not moving up"

For this to take shape, you have to assume that the "highest official classification" is going to change. It's gonna be 30-40 teams. This isn't like going FCS in the '80s. It's not even close....the entire landscape has changed. NIL, transfer portal, ESPN, media.....nothing today resembles 1988.

The "highest official classification" is just a label. It's unofficially the SEC/Big 10 now...even the Big 12 is not stable...P5 is going to P2. We have to stop thinking that because an Oregon State has "always been a Power conference school" that they will continue to be one. Boston College? SMU? LOL. The math has changed. Alabama, Ohio State and Texas are so far removed from the lower P5s and G5s that snow ball is moving at warp speed down the mountain. Them along with ESPN run college football now and what they want, they will get. I don't think Ohio State really cares about Washington St....

We (current G5 plus the P5 "hanger ons") aren't going to be able to keep up with this new world...

I think this proposal is a new classification...not moving down to an existing one.

Just my humble opinion....

The Boston College/SMU's of the world will still be in the mix through access to the playoff. Obviously, there is going to be a Power 2 but what's going to eventually happen is the Big 10 and SEC will shuffle off some of their lesser performing "assets" down to the ACC and Big 12 while FSU, Clemson, Kansas, and potentially UNC move up. Rutgers, Vandy, NW, and a few others will head down.

The G5 will have their own division and won't be given access to the playoff, therefore necessitating they create their own.

Edited April 25 by SMU2006

TheColonyEagle · April 25

19 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

The Boston College/SMU's of the world will still be in the mix through access to the playoff. Obviously, there is going to be a Power 2 but what's going to eventually happen is the Big 10 and SEC will shuffle off some of their lesser performing "assets" down to the ACC and Big 12 while FSU, Clemson, Kansas, and potentially UNC move up. Rutgers, Vandy, NW, and a few others will head down.

The G5 will have their own division and won't be given access to the playoff, therefore necessitating they create their own.

That's right they'll shuffle them "DOWN"

In this new world, who is SMU more aligned with?

Rutgers, Vandy, NW and a few others?

or

Ohio St, Bama, Texas, USC

(I didn't want to turn this into an SMU topic but you just can't seem to accept reality...)

SMU2006 · April 25

6 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

That's right they'll shuffle them "DOWN"

In this new world, who is SMU more aligned with?

Rutgers, Vandy, NW and a few others?

or

Ohio St, Bama, Texas, USC

(I didn't want to turn this into an SMU topic but you just can't seem to accept reality...)

Oh there's no question SMU (along with several others) are not going to be in the Power 2. The point I'm making is there will still be access to a playoff system for the Big 12 and ACC "leftovers". Same will not be true for the G5.

wardly · April 25

23 hours ago, NT80 said:

The 1AA playoffs only work because there are home games involved for higher seeds in each round. Using minor Bowls or neutral sites would add huge costs plus more travel and kill attendance.

You are correct. It's time for some of the minor bowls to bite the dust anyway.

GrandGreen · April 25

47 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

But I don't see this a move down....more of a "not moving up"

For this to take shape, you have to assume that the "highest official classification" is going to change. It's gonna be 30-40 teams. This isn't like going FCS in the '80s. It's not even close....the entire landscape has changed. NIL, transfer portal, ESPN, media.....nothing today resembles 1988.

The "highest official classification" is just a label. It's unofficially the SEC/Big 10 now...even the Big 12 is not stable...P5 is going to P2. We have to stop thinking that because an Oregon State has "always been a Power conference school" that they will continue to be one. Boston College? SMU? LOL. The math has changed. Alabama, Ohio State and Texas are so far removed from the lower P5s and G5s that snow ball is moving at warp speed down the mountain. Them along with ESPN run college football now and what they want, they will get. I don't think Ohio State really cares about Washington St....

We (current G5 plus the P5 "hanger ons") aren't going to be able to keep up with this new world...

I think this proposal is a new classification...not moving down to an existing one.

Just my humble opinion....

Hate to break it to you, but NT has never been able to keep pace with the top tier of teams in terms of resources or overall quality.

Plus if your current competition moves up and you don't than that is moving down not staying in place.

What should happen and I believe will at some point is that there will be adjustments to NIL. No one likes it except the players and their agents. Probably not for decades, but fans will eventually dictate the change. When the fans stop caring because they won't support the new nomads of sports like the teams prior to NIL; there will be changes.

TheColonyEagle · April 25

14 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Oh there's no question SMU (along with several others) are not going to be in the Power 2. The point I'm making is there will still be access to a playoff system for the Big 12 and ACC "leftovers". Same will not be true for the G5.

For now…..

But why would the P2 want to share the playoff with the non P2?

they don’t have to. There’s nothing in it for them.

Who do they want in, an 8-4 big brand like Penn St or an 11-1 non brand like SMU.

SMU2006 · April 25

6 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

For now…..

But why would the P2 want to share the playoff with the non P2?

they don’t have to. There’s nothing in it for them.

Who do they want in, an 8-4 big brand like Penn St or an 11-1 non brand like SMU.

B/c there are too many complications of limiting the sphere to 30-ish schools, not the least of which will be Congress and the mother of all antitrust lawsuits.