a number of reasons. I am also for getting the regular season over with more quickly and starting the playoffs earlier. I also like keeping a weekend exclusively for the Army-Navy Game and the Heisman Trophy presentation. I'd totally be for moving the Commonwealth Cup game to another weekend during the season if called upon. The game wasn't played on Thanksgiving weekend until 1981, and after that, it has been played on a weekend other than Thanksgiving weekend about 15 times. I don't see it as anything sacred. In fact, I think it would be cool to play it the day before Thanksgiving even. Also, I wouldn't hate the game being our opener, or to play in mid-October. Might be cool to play it Columbus Day weekend, too. Also, concerning Week 0, perhaps everyone should be able to play Week 0 and eliminate byes. That would give everyone two extra games. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 6/22/2025, 1:05:23 PM

I would like to end the string of six-win (or fewer) seasons. :)

the season. That way you can bounce back from the loss easier, than later in the year. I want to see fans talking about Virginia Tech West Virginia, Pitt and Penn State, Nebraska and Oklahoma, Virginia and Maryland etc. all of the off season. However, either way, get them back!!! ** Edited by Stech at 6/22/2025, 3:10:24 PM

definition "professionals", the NCAA or what ever governing body that has power, needs to eliminate the restrictions on playing in week zero, or earlier. Also, the season needs to be extended to even more games, so that schools like VT can continue to schedule games against in State G5's or FCS schools. Classes are not in session for those athletes that are there for an education, and an extra regular season game or two would bring in more of the thing that really matters today - money. I have no doubt the local community of Blacksburg, or any other college town, would frown upon another home game to help the local businesses and local tax revenue. If the players insist on being paid, then they need to step up and work harder.

season moving its start date to Week 0 or an even earlier week is the impact it could have on player safety. Remember teams currently can't start their first day of practice until 3 or 4 weeks before their first game (I forget the exact bylaw that spells out that requirement). That means teams will start practice either at the end of July or beginning of August depending on the date of their first game. Given the average temperatures (think heat and humidity) around the country during that time of the year, there is a great likelihood that the bulk of the schools (including DI-FCS, DII, and DIII) will be forced to practice outside in that environment. What is the risk that schools will see an increase in the number of players experiencing either heat exhaustion or even a heat stroke because they were practicing in full pads in heat and humidity? Based on the various news stories on this issue over the years, I would think the greatest risk are to players in the 17-19 (maybe 20) range. This may be a risk schools aren't willing to take on even if it could mean more money for them.

players sued the NCAA, and now will share in the revenue. That makes them professional, and not "student athletes". It seems that they had no issues with the playoff format which adds games at the end of the season. It's no longer an exhibition bowl game, it's a playoff format to earn more money - that they are supposed to get a % of. Which is it? Are they students, or money making professionals? Let the FCS worry about their football student athletes, as they are playing for scholarships and the love of the game. Today, in top FBS football, they play for money.

then the schools may either have to give them a say via a CBA or at the very least make sure safety protocols are in place based on a risk assessment. If the schools are going to treat them as "employees," then they will need to adhere to all federal and state labor laws. Also, it is worth noting that the start of a season may not be restricted to just a division level or subdivision level because of how the NCAA fiscal calendar is structured. Remember there are some bylaws that require majority of support for all three division levels. If this is one of the bylaws that requires majority support from all three division levels, due to the fact that teams could schedule games against a team from another division level or subdivision level, then the decision may not be as simple as you are trying to make it in your second paragraph.

my perspective, if they are being paid, they are by the very definition professionals. 'Employees" of the university is separate. Are they students or not? That is the central question from my perspective.

in football and schedule the game to be played on August 7, 2025, then do you consider the game to be professional vs. professional, professional vs. student, or student vs. student? If you think it is professional (Kansas) vs. students (Drake), then should both groups have the same or different rights?

example, is a division one basketball school, and receives money from the NCAA tournament. I don't think for a second that they have never paid a basketball player, under the table, of with NIL. They too will be paying players moving forward. Maybe my example of FCS was the wrong example, but call the division anything you want. Players sharing the revenue is a game changer where no one really knows how this plays out. The old adage that we have to protect the students is bunk in my humble opinion. This is no longer about education, or the "kids", or any other lofty pat yourself on the back reason. It's about money. Make FBS play more games, and let the players share in that revenue. The kids, and their parents can easily go to universities that are not FBS - and still get scholarships.

don't know if it will be limited to just DI-FBS (for football) and DI for all other sports, all of DI (which would include DI-FCS), and potentially DII or DIII. While it is nice (in theory) to want to see the DI-FBS play more games among themselves or only against themselves, the reality is it may not be possible. A conference may even make it a requirement or the schools pass a bylaw (i.e. DI-FBS schools can't schedule football games against DII and DIII schools and DI-FCS schools can schedule football games against DII, but not DIII schools). What happens when a state government decides to pass a law requiring the state's DI-FBS schools (or P2 schools) schedule a certain percentage of football games against the state's DI-FCS schools? You may be asking yourself why would a state government do that. Well in some states taxpayers' dollars can be used to fund college athletics and even college athletics capital projects (i.e. stadium building or renovations). Depending on how much cuts are made to federal funding to colleges and universities going forward, states may see these "money games" as a way for schools to help offset those losses particularly if the state is forced to reallocate its funding (i.e. shift funding from athletics to academics or research) to try to make up for the cut in federal funding. Remember, just because your state does it a certain way, it doesn't mean that is how the other 49 states, DC, Puerto Rico, or Canada does things.

legislative fix - which, in my opinion, is where this is all headed. Maybe the answer is to separate football from "college athletics". They talked about that when title 9 was being drawn up, as there isn't a comparable sport for "equality". Yormark is wanting to separate football from basketball in the next media deal negotiation. A separation of sports may be the fix for college athletics and "student athletes", and football, in my opinion, will be under a different association, with different rules, and they will indeed schedule more games - students be damned.

interesting to see if an antitrust law would stand up in the courts or not. Unfortunately, we can't compare the NFL's antitrust exemption under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 because the organization (and even the teams) are a privately funded entity. Also, there would be questions on whether an antitrust act for college football would be a violation of Title IX and other similar federal and/or state laws or not. My personal belief is there will be attempts to pass legislation to address these issues and even separate college football from the rest of college athletics. However, I do not think it will stand up in the courts because DI-FBS football has evolved into a slightly different animal compared to DI-FCS, DII, DIII, NAIA DI, NAIA DII, and even JUCO football. Even if they figure out a solution for football, will that same solution work for (men's) basketball? At least it is reasonable to assume that the 2 revenue sports may be on a slightly different trajectory from the other sports sponsored by schools. If not, then will they have to go back to the drawing board? If so, then they could be forced to revisit their solution for football.

whole idea of anti trust is to mitigate judicial review. Maye they make it an opt in option, and we do indeed have a semi pro league, and college athletics. There are many schools in FBS that shouldn't be - 50% of the MAC for instance. Thing is though, FBS is growing at the "G" level, not decreasing. I don't know the answer, but pay for play isn't it.

is one may be what is the least "dirty" solution.

Let’s see Kansas and Virginia Tech do a home and home 🏈 series. Let’s see high quality wins become more important in selection. Let’s see Thanksgiving weekend become Conference Rivalry games with a lot riding on them. These Conferences (really TV Alliances) are so big, schedule some other natural rivalry games in the conference that are OOC games. The Virginia Tech North Carolina game got to intense level, the Virginia Tech Georgia Tech was good too, Virginia Tech Clemson, Virginia Tech NC State should have been another one, but they hardly play each other.

schools will play in the playoffs, so starting the regular season early, and adding games would be a win win. I also understand your position of a more quality OOC schedule, more "rivalry" games, and games that the national audience would be interested in - but I contend that is exactly what the P2 did, and what got us into this mess to begin with. It's real easy for me to say that the power schools should schedule in State G5's and FCS schools, as Kansas really doesn't have any in football. For me at least, VT scheduling an away game with ODU gives them instant cred in my book. Can you imagine Alabama playing in Troy's stadium, or UAB as an example? Or how about tOSU playing a game at Toledo? There needs to be a balance moving forward. K-State will never be blue blood, even if they won the National championship in a unique year. No offense, but VT is in the same camp. Find your lane (pun intended), and kick ass. The rest will fall into place.

It doesn’t mean we can’t play ODU or JMU occasionally, but that shouldn’t be our Lane! (Also pun intended) With unequal sharing, you need to schedule up. With SOS getting strengthened for playoff selection, schedule up. There are going to be little to no advantage to scheduling down, and I for one am very happy we apparently headed in that direction.

schedule only matters to the fans and networks. If you receive an at large, it will mean that you were competitive in your conference OOC losses against the blue bloods will not help the cause I'm afraid. It's not different then the G5's scheduling games against any in the power conferences that will play them. Might get more money, and the occasional upset, but as long as they are in a G5 conference, they will in all likelihood have to be undefeated. Build your team to beat Miami, FSU, Clemson, and you are in.

your chances. The fans and the networks do matter, if you want to be at the top, if not, drop down. I have another school that I follow that choose to do that years ago, but if Virginia Tech and Kansas are going to pay $20 million and growing a year to athletes, you need to find other ways to generate money.