Members more revenue. At this point, that school is firmly committed to being an independent. Way more sand has to shift for Notre Dame to join a conference. ** Edited by PadrosWindup at 6/7/2025, 12:37:41 PM

returns that apply here. There is only so much time one consumer has to watch college football. So the more games a conference puts on AT THE SAME TIME, the more it cuts into its own margins. And when there are more mouths to feed, it might not be worth the risk, even if the conference is making a little bit more money. To you're point, I am not sure if the P2 have reached this point or not, but if they at least don't realize the risk, they are stupid.

point on the graph, and they will get the ratings in the short term. The consumer of college athletics may turn out to be more fickle than they think. 4 loss Oklahoma's, USC's, Michigan's ... etc. will get very tiring for the blue blood fans.

What I would do is something like this. A giant wild card weekend or two. And this would make up for getting rid of conference champ games. G6 each gets their top team and they play each other to get to 3. Then those 3 play along with ND to get to 2. Those 2 get into the 16 team playoff. The SEC and BIG each get their top 9 teams. ACC and B12 each get their top 5 teams. These 28 teams play a wildcard weekend with the top 14 going into the final 16 team playoff. Losers of the above go to bowl games. The SEC and BIG each have the opportunity to earn up to 9 of the 16 playoff spots.

10 conference champions, six at large bids. And let's make them even madder and say that the six at large bids all have to come from different conferences or ND. The reasoning being that if you are only the third best team in your conference, how can you be the best team in the country. The third best team in a conference doesn't deserve a shot at the national championship. People will argue that a lot of weaker conference champions don't deserve a shot at a national championship either. And that is true enough. But let's be honest, there are not 16 teams in college football each year that deserve a shot at the national championship. Realistically we should have probably stopped at 4. Rarely are there more than four teams that distinguish themselves as being worthy of a championship. When we expanded to eight and more, that was just a money grab. So if we are going to include teams that are really not good enough, why not go ahead and reward all conference champions? Once we have expanded to 16, how many of those 16 have a realistic shot at winning a championship? Most will not. So let's spread the money around and reward all conference champions, not just a bunch of P2 teams. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 6/6/2025, 11:25:03 AM

then are you suggesting March Madness should only be a 32 team (31 conference champions and 1 at-large team) field? I ask because there is talk of expanding the field. If the 6th or 7th best team in a conference is able to compete for a national championship in basketball, then why shouldn't football receive that same luxury?

But let's make a comparison anyway. We have 64+ teams participating in March madness. But is that really about giving all of those teams a chance to compete for a national championship, or is it about rewarding all of those teams for a good season. Every conference champion in basketball gets an automatic bid to the tournament. Why not let football conference champions have that same reward? In either case, it's not about granting them an opportunity to compete for a national championship, but it's about rewarding them for a successful season. As I said previously, in any given season for college football, there is not 16 teams capable of competing for a championship. In the same way there are not 64+ teams capable for competing for a championship in college basketball. I believe Villanova is the lowest seeded team ever to win a championship, they were an eight seed. So why do we have 64 teams in a bracket, when historically 32 teams would be sufficient. Every other team is simply being rewarded for winning a conference championship, or having a good season without winning a conference championship. Historically, they are not competing for a national championship. In addition, as stated, football and basketball are apples and oranges. The difference between the number one ranked team in the country in football and the 10th ranked team is far greater than the difference between the number one ranked team and the number 10 ranked team in basketball. Lower ranked teams can make a run at a championship in basketball, So it's easier to justify 4th and 5th placed conference teams making the tournament. But in reality, the bottom half of the field of teams do not have a chance at winning a national championship, they're just there to add excitement in the first couple of rounds, and to reward those schools for a job well done that season. And to bring in more money. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 6/6/2025, 6:11:53 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 6/6/2025, 6:15:06 PM

where the premise that the gap between #1 and #16 is not as wide as people perceived it to be. Particularly if at least 75% of those teams ranked in that range come from one of the 2 P2 conferences. Plus, it is only a matter of time before people see the FBS champion have 2 or 3 losses more frequently because teams beat up on each other during the regular season. I have always thought if the FBS is going to have its own playoffs, then every conference that wants to participate should receive an automatic bid to the tournament even if it meant having a 32-team tournament. Unfortunately, there are not enough games for people to really know how the conferences stack up against each other. I don't have a problem if a tournament is set up to "reward teams for a successful season" because majority of the NCAA tournaments have been structured in that format. Why should football be any different? Heck the NCAA DI Football Tournament (aka FCS Playoffs) is structured that way with its 24-team field. If at any point the non-P2 conferences ever decide to consolidate with the DI-FCS, then that is exactly the kind of playoff teams would have to compete in.

I would also say, have all conferences go to 10 conference games. 2 OOC games. I think the current conference structure is totally messed up anyway. But this would be a good antiseptic.

First, the SEC and the B1G aren't going to go to or even stop at 20 just to fit neatly into a CFP model that could easily change after every contract. They will expand or not expand based on MONEY. And 20 isn't a magic number. Second, with 5-team divisions getting an automatic bid, theoretically, a team could go 4-8 and make the playoff. And by the way, how would conference championship games figure into all of this for the P2? I could do without CCGs myself, but the TV and conference execs don't want to give them up. And further, what will the CFP do to award conference champs in a 16-team playoff where byes are no longer available. BTW, the 4-4-2-2-1-3 and the 5-11 are both garbage, at least in the framework of the current proposals.

In a 20-team conf with 5 team divisions, you have 9 conference games. You always play the 4 other teams in your division, and your division rotates vs the other 3 divisions biannually, home/away. So your 5 team division always plays the same 9 conference teams. So no, a 4-8 record will absolutely never win a 5 team division. Theoretically, a 6-6 record might could. (6-3 conference; 0-3 non conference) If we are being realistic, I would think 8-4 would be the most likely 'worst' record for P2 division champs, due to winning easy non conference games. And since the P2 are already getting ahead by trumpeting strength of schedule, even a 8-4 champ will just be positively compared to sub .500 NFL teams winning a poor division and making the playoffs and nobody will care that much. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 6/6/2025, 11:01:59 AM

But my point is, it is ridiculous to give a CFP-16 spot to a team that has won a 5-team division as an auto qualifier. And where did you hear that they were getting rid of championship games? Is that even in the discussion? If so, I missed it.

a probability that there will be a 3rd conference with, lets say 24 teams. (call it the ACC or B12, it really doesn't matter). 4-4-2-2- equates to 4 auto's from all three conferences. No matter which conference VT or my school ends up in, I think no one would say that is fair. That is why it doesn't work. The P2 will not willingly give up their power, money, or advantage in procuring the best players. ** Edited by Big12 guy at 6/6/2025, 8:43:19 AM ** Edited by Big12 guy at 6/6/2025, 9:00:13 AM

But right now, I don't see a P2+1 situation. I still see a P2 + ACC (weakened) + B12 (no football power). Time will tell. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 6/6/2025, 9:00:07 AM

B12 vs ACC thing currently. It was, and could be again, but there are too many variables with the settlement, players being paid, playoff structure, and some other issues. If the status quo remains, then the P2 will poach some more schools, and call it good. Until those moves are made, around 2030 or so, I just don't see any moves other than in the G5.

We are just fodder.

that are allocated today, will not be the monies allocated in 2030 for evry conference except the ACC. Stick your chest out if you must, but things are changing fast. The conference comparisons today are a joke. Comparing the ACC to the B12 today is irrelevent, as neither the ACC or B12 can, will, or even try to poach teams from each other. That will be revisited around 2030 when the settlement has a history, new media contracts are negotiated, and other unknowns like legislation, the basketball tournament set up/media negotiations, and a few other things that will/will not transpire. The ACC got their extension, and they are going to be the next to take a shot at unequal distributions. Until we know how this plays out, you are stuck in 2023. I don't think it's even a thing anymore, even with the B12 podcasters. ** Edited by Big12 guy at 6/8/2025, 10:18:50 AM ** Edited by Big12 guy at 6/8/2025, 12:25:40 PM

Many Big 12 podcasters and posters now only talk about 2030 when comparing the ACC and the Big 12. They must not be very happy with the current situation.

Battle Royale. Unless you prefer Rumble in the Concrete Jungle more.

...and I wouldn't expect the ACC or B12 to do either if either conference was in the P2. A level playing field is the last thing they want.

4/20 + a potential at large means 20-25% of the P2 gets in the CFP. 2/16 means 12.5% of the ACC/B12 get in the CFP. 2/18 means 11%. It's exactly what the P2 would want. More money, power and control, all with the illusion for public perception that the ACC/B12 are a part of it.