In this mess and make his voice heard. They’ve been getting rich handover fist with a free minor-league system for close to a century. They need to work with the colleges the way the NBA has worked with colleges as well. There’s no reason they can’t do something with their collective bargaining agreement to help fix this wild west mentality.

now the NFL is getting a minor league for free. If the NFL stepped in to create a minor league, then it will only increase the cost among the owners. I seriously doubt a majority of the owners (if any) are willing to increase their cost just to appease schools and college football fans. The reason the NBA was willing to work with the schools is because the G League (and minor league basketball) is lower cost compared to the cost required to start a minor league American football league.

The NFL has no incentive to do it, and for my preference, I'd prefer not to turn college football into the boring NFL. I stopped watching the NFL about 20 years ago for a bunch of reasons. Works for them. I'm just not interested.

and away in the same season or every 2 years to ensure a team gets to play every other team home and away, then I would be okay with that format. However, if that isn't possible and the promotion/relegation is done at the end of every season, then I would think it would create too many logistical issues to gain enough support. I say that because not every team has the same "value" when it comes to a home opponent. For example, ManU, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs, Everton, and maybe West Ham are more desirable opponents than Nottingham Forest, Leeds United, Crystal Palace, Brentsford, Bournemouth, and Aston Villa. If I was a Foxes fan and Leicester City's home schedule didn't include all of the 6-7 more desirable clubs listed above, then there is a good chance I wouldn't consider purchasing season tickets. You can bet the Leicester City owners would understand where I and other fans are coming from on this subject. I would think they would object to Leicester City's home schedule if other clubs got to play all 6-7 more desirable clubs at home for the upcoming season. College conferences are no different than the EPL, Bundesliga, Serie A, La Liga, or whatever other top tier European football league you want to include that uses promotion/relegation.

But let's assume you can only play 12. A home and home would allow for only 7 teams at the top tier. That's too few for my taste. I'd put 13 teams in the East and 13 in the West. And play the East champ and West champ in a national final in the Rose Bowl on New Years Day. I hear what you are saying, but if you have ND, Bama, Georgia, PSU, Michigan, Clemson, Ohio State, Florida, Florida State, Auburn, Michigan State, South Carolina, Tennessee in Top Tier East, there's a tough schedule no matter how you slice it. So it won't matter much who gets whom at home. It's not like the crappy division model when you might only have 2 good teams out of 7--in that case you the home team in let's say the ACC Atlantic FSU vs. Clemson would have a distinct advantage. Also, keep in mind that being 4-8 in that schedule would make you safe from relegation.

cycle could still work. The "divisions" would just have to be capped based on whether the "conference schedule" is 8, 9, 10, or 12 games. Remember once the divisions get to a certain size, they essentially become their own conference due to the lack of intra-division games during the regular season.

Nothing would really be it's own conference anymore, but there would be a lot of continuity between Tier 1 and Tier 2 as teams would be moving up and down on an annual basis would have similar levels of competitiveness. Ditto with Tier 2 and Tier 3. With that list of schools, just think some of these teams wouldn't be there the next year. And new teams would be up, like Virginia Tech, Miami, West Virginia, Purdue or Kentucky. But a whole system based on merit and true competition would blow away the closed-off, non-transparent anti-competition system we have now, where winners and losers are chosen by educrats and TV executives rather than the coaches and players the field.

the conference that everyone gets an opportunity to play the same home and away schedule as every other team in the conference/division/quad. If the promotion/relegation has to happen at the end of every season, then the conference/division/quad will have be small enough to ensure home and away games are played within the 12 game schedule. A conference/division/quad of 6 would mean 10 conference games and 2 OOC games. A conference/division/quad of 7 would mean 12 conference games and no OOC games. This concept isn't new because it has existed since conferences and divisions first began.

Everyone gets 6 home and 6 away. And there's no phony selection committee picking the playoff qualifiers. But yeah, the people would need to decide, do you want more teams in the top tier, or do you want to play each team home and home. I prefer the prior. Because with the latter only 14 teams (7 East, 7 West) per-season can qualify to the the Tier 1 National Champion. Seem too narrow to me.

NIL will get some of them big money but those guys are the ones going pro and will reap even bigger rewards. Most will make a few thousand dollars off their college experience but it won't sustain them for a lifetime. To build a system completely around "I might make it to the pros" is very disingenuous when so few will ever get that far. Colleges need to be in the business they are intended for, i.e., preparing people for life. This athletic monstrosity they have built is completely outside of their core missions.

-Families and high school programs have invested more in these young athletes than ever before. Things such as camps, club teams, summer workouts, weight training, maybe even personal trainers and dietitians have contributed to families wanting their young athletes to cash in earlier. They’ve been training to be athletes, not students, most of their lives. [This is very true but it does beg the question, a lot of these athletes are coming from low and lower income circumstances so where is that money coming from? says to me that economically, these kids are already "bought" by somebody.] -The value and quality of education has decreased. People just don't see it as valuable as they did in the past. Just because the cost of education has gone up doesn't mean its value and reputation have gone up. So getting "education" in exchange for services, just doesn't seem like such a great deal anymore. [Again that is a true statement but the flip side is many, especially males are passing on college but they don't "play college" like these athletes do. Maybe just maybe these athletes should prepare academically as much as they do athletically or the stage they want but are not entitled to won't exist for them. There is a mindset that colleges must provide athletic opportunities and that is not the purpose of colleges at all. That is why I am in favor of a total minor league like say baseball. Universities are for teaching and research not athletics for non students.] -So when Cardale Jones at Ohio State (AAU school in a conference purporting to be serious about academics) says “I'm not here to play school," he's not wrong; he just said the quiet part out loud. This illustrates that some athletes and maybe most athletes don't see the value in education and they are clearly there to play sports. [ Then find a non educational purpose place to do that] -I don't know what to call it but I think athletes could major in something just simply called “Athletics.” There's plenty to teach to people wanting to be professional athletes. Instead of having phony majors they can learn about investing, taxes, public speaking, operating sports camps, establishing a small business and other things that would come in handy if they don't make it in the pros. After all, even players who don't go to the NBA or NFL can still make money off of their image as they still have name recognition in their communities. [I think the presidents need to go the other way, if they aren't students, you don't get the stage, training, coaching etc. And, aren't there already majors that pretty much cover that already? All those athletes have to do is go get them. But they would say they are already tapped out training for their sport.] -Further, will athletes even have to go to class anymore? If you think about the clubs in Premier League soccer, most started as factory teams and used factory workers. As stakes got higher (the money and the will to win), the players did soccer full time…to the point where they eventually “hired” people to play who never saw the inside of a factory. Are we headed to that in “college” football?

There is so many options for some kids to make more money then anyone with a degree.and as an institution you select the type of kids you wanf. That guy at ohio st wouldn't be a fit a vt. However players and families are different. Some families who need money - use their kids for them to get wealthy. Further many of these kids were raised to make it on their own. Schools do nothing for them because they dont have support for homework at home. They can go to athetics find a gravy train and get theirs. If they can get a 6-7 year contract and/or nil and get more money.,if they can hang for 1-3 yrs in college take some courses and head nfl for a free agent comtract. And find deals. Very cynical very real. That is why vt and some other schools are frankly not recruiting some players who nil is no 1. They want players who want to go to the school and development. Our committed players will beat those others with hussle and drive.

Kids have more support to train etc and be used by some enabler well before college but don't have the home support system to do homework and avoid being used and fleeced.

Drop the student from student-athlete and make them employees in the school's marketing department. That's all they are or will be. They can take the training that you described, which is far more applicable to their future endeavors.

not gonna happen. Employing athletes is just too incongruent with a university mission. I'm sure some will read that and think "athletics is already incongruent with university missions." Maybe true, but to literally employ an athlete crosses a line that I think universities just won't do. Never mind the mess that would ensue with Title IX and other issues if somehow that line got crossed. Maybe there's some sort of contrived "revenue sharing" solution that looks like pay for play and achieves a similar end but isn't actually employment, but I don't think there's any way we see employment contracts with universities to play ball.

get codified/implemented. What a mess that is going to end up being.

Not sure what that means. Title IX is federal law for higher ed institutions that receive federal money. IIWII. It's not in trouble. It's not going away. It's also not really an athletics thing (specifically), despite the fact that around here that's pretty much always the context in which it comes up.

200 mil athletic budgets might soon be the norm. Somehow, more of that $$ needs to go to the athletes. I dont see how this could work but Im sure there is a way. But it wont be as employer/employee

reckoning where most schools, knowing they aren't raising /getting 200 mill can't do those 200 million budgets (VT is probably one of them). So faced with football providing no net $$$ to help run an athletic budget, will bow out and if they even keep football is will be more Ivy than what we have today.

at all with them getting some revenue sharing at the conference level.