Anything and everything about Liberty Flames football. Your comments on games, recruiting and the direction of the program as we move into new era.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke, Class of 20Something

By Dalegarz1
Posts
#660108
The CFP just adopted the 5 plus 7 model for the 12 team playoff playoff. I’m starting this thread to solicit your opinion on how this affects us now and moving forward.
User avatar
By Kricket
Registration Days Posts
#660111
Obviously having 2 automatic bids for G5 would have been better than 1, but I think a lot of us saw this coming. To be honest, I'm not sure we really can complain, as under this format we would have been in the CFP this year.

I was really hoping we'd get one year of 6 plus 6, with Kaidon and most of the offense being back.
By tyndal23
Posts
#660116
Mountain West for 24 and 25 will have both a perceived and real, SOS dominance over rest of G5. 3 teams that had 1 will now have 2 ( P5 equivalent...just for you PH ) games. Several had 2 (now 3 )and a few had (3 now 4). Anyone arguing playing Wa State or Oregon St in 24 isn’t “ technically” a P5 for SOS...well - pull up rest of G5 Conference schedules from top to bottom and match them up with MW and tell me who sniffs it. It would take an App St beating Clemson or Tulane beating OU type scenario where both came out with equal record to overcome SOS..

Good news is - 2 loss team from MW is a tough road and an undefeated or 1 loss Pac2 won’t steal an auto bid - they would have to sneak in via at large.

As for LU - we get App St. a week after they play Clemson on the road - we need a close game or long shot upset that shoves us up rankings early if we beat App St. Then we might be in the mix with a loss, and leader in the club house If we run the table.

As for Fiesta Bowl - seeing LU in more than half of the early 24 “CFP” brackets. That is huge for perception starting point.

https://fbschedules.com/mountain-west-f ... -schedule/
Baybird, LUOrange liked this
User avatar
By Ill flame
Posts
#660119
Chances are the 5/7 model won't last long. The B1G and SEC wants 4 autobids a piece and are pushing for an expansion to a 14 team CFP starting in 2026.

User avatar
By LUOrange
Registration Days Posts
#660123
Ill flame wrote: February 21st, 2024, 7:29 pm Chances are the 5/7 model won't last long. The B1G and SEC wants 4 autobids a piece and are pushing for an expansion to a 14 team CFP starting in 2026.

That would leave 7 conferences to share 6 bids. It seems to me that they're just straddling the line of their own subdivision or a break away. They probably would prefer to be pushed then them jumping on their own.

Personally, I'd give them 2 or 3 each with an expansion to 16 and 4 each with an expansion to 24, with both models giving each Conference champ an auto-bid.
Last edited by LUOrange on February 23rd, 2024, 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By tyndal23
Posts
#660124
LUOrange wrote: February 21st, 2024, 10:31 pm
Ill flame wrote: February 21st, 2024, 7:29 pm Chances are the 5/7 model won't last long. The B1G and SEC wants 4 autobids a piece and are pushing for an expansion to a 14 team CFP starting in 2026.

That would leave 7 conferences to share 5 bids. It seems to me that they're just straddling the line of their own subdivision or a break away. They probably would prefer to be pushed then them jumping on their own.

Personally, I'd give them 2 or 3 each with an expansion to 16 and 4 each with an expansion to 24, with both models giving each Conference champ an auto-bid.
I concur with 24 teams.
Top 8 Conference Champs get a bye.
9th Conference Champ hosts at home ( vs 24 seed ) which would probably be a 4 loss SEC or BIG team.
Emphasis on Conference Champs regardless of perceived SOS.
Next round also at highest seed home field.
Then plug in the bowl sites if you must...

Tiered $ for team and conference per round.

First round $ is w.
2nd round $ is x
3rd round is y
Champ is Living in a Purple Haize of euphoria and $.


Conference share starts at 50% and team gets 50% first round ) and swings another 10% each round toward team.

This scenario keeps the big dogs happy and the small dogs get an opportunity to become medium size dogs - it also levels out the recruiting gap a bit - top G5 Programs can get/keep a bit more talent if a kid knows he can show out on a National Stage vs possibly riding the bench for more $. ( won’t solve the NIL gap, but will narrow it a bit ) and will engage G5 boosters and support. The Crappy Bowl System is dead - move on - no need to wait just go 24 team playoff - give SEC and BIG their guaranteed teams and save college football.
User avatar
By Ill flame
Posts
#660191


If this is implemented its no better for us than the 5/7 model. In most seasons you'll likely need to finish in the top 12 to get an at large bid with those proposed autobids and that just isn't happening in CUSA.
User avatar
By Kricket
Registration Days Posts
#660192
Having more bids designated to a conference is not a good idea. You want more teams in the playoffs? They’re called at large bids and they’re based on your ranking. Seems silly to designate a certain number of teams per conference (outside of maybe conference champions) as strength of conferences naturally fluctuate.
LUOrange liked this
User avatar
By LUOrange
Registration Days Posts
#660193
It's amazing at how little of a fight, if any, that it appears that the G5 and Mid-major conferences and their Commissioners put up against the Power conferences. 1st it was the First 4 play-in games, then the NIT changes, the recent change of 6+6 to 5+7, and now this proposal. You'd think that these ppublic schools would be getting their university systems and state politicians involved. Obviously money makes the corrupt elitist world go round, and college athletics is one of the best examples of that.
Kricket liked this
User avatar
By Kricket
Registration Days Posts
#660194
LUOrange wrote:It's amazing at how little of a fight, if any, that it appears that the G5 and Mid-major conferences and their Commissioners put up against the Power conferences. 1st it was the First 4 play-in games, then the NIT changes, the recent change of 6+6 to 5+7, and now this proposal. You'd think that these ppublic schools would be getting their university systems and state politicians involved. Obviously money makes the corrupt elitist world go round, and college athletics is one of the best examples of that.
I feel the same. I saw one headline that said 5+7 was unanimously approved. I don't know how the whole process works, but do all the G5 conferences get no say? I thought they could maybe stick to 6+6 for one year.

The whole idea of a certain number of bids per conference feels like gerrymandering to me. Once you get power ensure you keep it by changing the structure of the system. I suppose their argument is now that the SEC and Big Ten are so big they effectively deserve more than one auto bid. It's somewhat valid. Perhaps a structure where the "east" and "west" division winners of conferences that have more than 16 teams or eligible for an auto bid. Essentially that would create 7 auto bids with the assumption that the BIG Ten and the SEC would take four of those slots leaving the Big 12 and the ACC one auto for each and the one for the best G5. 7+5 model essentially.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#660195
They don’t put up a fight because they don’t really have any leverage. The G5 need the P4 more than the other way around
Ill flame, LUOrange liked this
User avatar
By Ill flame
Posts
#660196
Purple Haize wrote: February 29th, 2024, 1:29 pm They don’t put up a fight because they don’t really have any leverage. The G5 need the P4 more than the other way around
This is exactly what I was gonna say. It's not like the G5s can just refuse to play until the P4 gives them a better deal. We would just be doing them a favor at that point and considering ESPN all but owns the SEC, all of the talking heads would just makes the G5s look like the bad guys for being greedy.
User avatar
By Kricket
Registration Days Posts
#660197
Ill flame wrote: February 29th, 2024, 3:07 pm
Purple Haize wrote: February 29th, 2024, 1:29 pm They don’t put up a fight because they don’t really have any leverage. The G5 need the P4 more than the other way around
This is exactly what I was gonna say. It's not like the G5s can just refuse to play until the P4 gives them a better deal. We would just be doing them a favor at that point and considering ESPN all but owns the SEC, all of the talking heads would just makes the G5s look like the bad guys for being greedy.
My understanding is each conference gets a vote on the CFP and it was reported that the transition was unanimous to go to 5+7. What did the G5 teams gain from that move? Why didn't any of them vote to keep it 6+6?

Is my understanding wrong that each conference had a representative to vote?
User avatar
By Ill flame
Posts
#660198
The pac-2 held out for awhile but was offered enough money to agree to the new model. I assume it was the same with the G5. With this new format being discussed it does not have to be unanimous and since the P4 has double the voting power, they don't need the G5 to agree to anything.
User avatar
By Kricket
Registration Days Posts
#660199
Ill flame wrote: February 29th, 2024, 3:26 pm The pac-2 held out for awhile but was offered enough money to agree to the new model. I assume it was the same with the G5. With this new format being discussed it does not have to be unanimous and since the P4 has double the voting power, they don't need the G5 to agree to anything.
Why would the PAC 2 not want the new model? They wouldn’t get an autobid so the new format is better for them (one more at large).

You’re making an assumption that the G5s negotiated something out of giving up an extra spot for the sake of a unanimous vote? Why would the G5 get anything if they had no leverage? And if offered nothing because they have no leverage, why not vote to keep it 6+6? Are you saying the G5s were paid for the optics of a unanimous vote?
Dalegarz1 liked this
User avatar
By Ill flame
Posts
#660202
Kricket wrote: February 29th, 2024, 6:27 pm
Ill flame wrote: February 29th, 2024, 3:26 pm The pac-2 held out for awhile but was offered enough money to agree to the new model. I assume it was the same with the G5. With this new format being discussed it does not have to be unanimous and since the P4 has double the voting power, they don't need the G5 to agree to anything.
Why would the PAC 2 not want the new model? They wouldn’t get an autobid so the new format is better for them (one more at large).

You’re making an assumption that the G5s negotiated something out of giving up an extra spot for the sake of a unanimous vote? Why would the G5 get anything if they had no leverage? And if offered nothing because they have no leverage, why not vote to keep it 6+6? Are you saying the G5s were paid for the optics of a unanimous vote?
In the current agreement, P5s get roughly 80% of the CFP money. I believe the P4 didn't want the two remaining pac 12 schools to get a full P5 share so those two teams held out until they got what they were asking for. To change from a 6/6 to 5/7 prior to the end of the current contract in 2025 it needed to be unanimous. After that year the G5 schools lose all leverage. My assumption is that they agreed to change to 5/7 in exchange for more money and a guarantee to not be left out of the expanded CFP which is always a possibility.
LUOrange liked this
User avatar
By Kricket
Registration Days Posts
#660233
Ok, so you’re saying G5s did have leverage to keep it 6+6 and chose not to for an unknown benefit (perhaps money or perhaps not losing a G5 autobid in the future).

It sounds like you’re giving the G5 reps the benefit of the doubt that they made a fair trade. Without knowing the details of the negotiation I’m not so sure I’d give them that benefit.

I do think that if the G5s made a big enough deal out of getting auto bids the public would support it. That being said, I don’t think most schools care that much about that autobid. It’s not like Ball State is worried about making the CFP. There are few G5s that have that desire to be in contention to make the CFP and we are one of them. Most schools would take guaranteed money over another autobid.
LUOrange liked this
User avatar
By Ill flame
Posts
#660237
Kricket wrote: March 3rd, 2024, 9:28 am Ok, so you’re saying G5s did have leverage to keep it 6+6 and chose not to for an unknown benefit (perhaps money or perhaps not losing a G5 autobid in the future).

It sounds like you’re giving the G5 reps the benefit of the doubt that they made a fair trade. Without knowing the details of the negotiation I’m not so sure I’d give them that benefit.

I do think that if the G5s made a big enough deal out of getting auto bids the public would support it. That being said, I don’t think most schools care that much about that autobid. It’s not like Ball State is worried about making the CFP. There are few G5s that have that desire to be in contention to make the CFP and we are one of them. Most schools would take guaranteed money over another autobid.
I went back and saw some quotes from AACs commissioner regarding the change to 5/7. Naturally he wanted to keep it at 6/6 for the next two years but knew (at the time) 5/7 was inevitable one way or another. The P4 was threatening to change the format to all at larges starting in 2026 if G5 didn't play ball. As you said, schools like ball state don't really care much about the auto bid. There's probably only about 12 of the 65 G5s that are legit contenders on an annual basis. You toss a school like that an extra $500k-$1 million a year and they'll agree to almost anything.
LUOrange liked this
By tyndal23
Posts
#661618
TH Spangler wrote: May 29th, 2024, 2:57 pm I could see us getting the top G5 (#12) and ND getting the highest ranked non-conf winner spot (#5).
Pretty good odds they get 5 spot ( they can’t get higher ) A&M week 1, FSU late, USC last week of season. Will depend on how those 3 teams do - could probably only lose week 1 and climb back to 5th with a 10 win or higher FSU and 10th or higher ranked USC - otherwise it will probably be MI/OSU loser or SEC runner up.

https://fbschedules.com/2024-notre-dame ... -schedule/
By JK37
Registration Days Posts
#661620
For free?! Put our playoff spot in jeopardy…for nothing?! Take some low-ball offer to just cover travel, sure. But don’t devalue us so much we do it for free. That’s dumb.
User avatar
By TH Spangler
Registration Days Posts
#661623
tyndal23 wrote: May 30th, 2024, 12:34 am
TH Spangler wrote: May 29th, 2024, 2:57 pm I could see us getting the top G5 (#12) and ND getting the highest ranked non-conf winner spot (#5).
Pretty good odds they get 5 spot ( they can’t get higher ) A&M week 1, FSU late, USC last week of season. Will depend on how those 3 teams do - could probably only lose week 1 and climb back to 5th with a 10 win or higher FSU and 10th or higher ranked USC - otherwise it will probably be MI/OSU loser or SEC runner up.

https://fbschedules.com/2024-notre-dame ... -schedule/
""If Liberty University secured the top Group of Five (G5) spot and Notre Dame achieved the highest rank among non-conference winners, they could potentially face each other in the College Football Playoffs.

For the 2024 season, Liberty University has been performing exceptionally well and is considered a favorite for the Conference USA crown again. If they continue to play at the level they did during their previous Fiesta Bowl run, they have a strong chance of reaching the College Football Playoff as the highest-ranked G5 team.

Notre Dame, being an independent school and not part of a conference, would need to be the highest-ranked team among those not winning a conference to secure a spot in the playoffs. The exact rankings and matchups would be determined by the College Football Playoff selection committee based on the teams’ performances throughout the season.

So, if both Liberty University and Notre Dame meet the respective criteria for their playoff spots, they could indeed be matched against each other in a playoff game, which would be an exciting and competitive encounter.""

#5 host #12 in first round
By ballcoach15
Registration Days Posts
#661626
Selection Committee is already working to insure ND is in playoffs. There's probably 3 pages of special rules for ND. What other school's AD is treated with same power as conference commissioners ?
NCAA Realignment Megathread

https://x.com/GSwaim/status/1782230858251768126[…]

Ashland Blazer's Zander Carter turns down offer[…]

2024

The way schools are trying to market season ticket[…]

2025 Commit: DL Nik Alston

Kid has committed to two different schools in abou[…]