Something should be said for keeping your conference competition regional as much as you can. Traveling will take a toll on the likes of USC and UCLA budgets as well as their athletes. It will definitely backfire.
Would you rather be possibly a national championship contender in the G5 if they had a playoff system or a middle of the pack Big10 Purdue or SEC cellar dweller like Vanderbilt with zero chance of ever even having a chance at qualifying for the college football playoff?
I wouldn’t mind seeing an 8 team G5 playoff in addition to this system though. The highest ranked G5 still makes the “big playoff” 4 G5 champs + 1 G5 runner up of the league in the “big playoff” + 3 G5 at larges. The G5 tournament championship plays the same day prior to the national championship as like an undercard leading up to a headlining fight. So does the FCS natty. “D1 National Championship Saturday” FCS title - morning/noon G5 title - Afternoon CFP title- evening Give college fans some appetizers leading up to a title on a SATURDAY
We definitely need the national championships on Saturday nights. I don't think it would make sense for the highest ranked G5 team to be delegated to the CFP if a G5 playoff exists. They're not going to ever let them get a home game and they will likely always be matched up against the 2nd best team from the Big 10 or SEC. In the long run I don't ever see that 5-seed losing to a G5 team at home. It would make more sense for that G5 team for compete in a game that it could actually be favored and truly have a chance to retain an undefeated or that 1-loss season.
No thanks… you want a g5 to play 3 extra games in a g5 playoff just to make the cfb playoff?… maybe the top 2 g5s playing for a spot in the cfb playoff but that’s it
@@joshgrothues7871 But then you run into the same issue with the Power 5 on the debate on who the best 2 teams are and who should really play for that National Championship
@TheJasonJackson84 I guess I believe that if that were the model for a Group of 5 playoff we would have to worry about the 8 teams being the 8 best or if someone somehow got left out that was deserving of getting in. Are we only going to allow certain Group of 5 conferences and there teams in are going to leave like a CUSA or MAC out and just take the AAC or Mountain West every year. That is what I hope doesn't happen if we go this route. I love Group of 5 Football that's all I watch along with the FCS if we go this way I hope we don't become like the Power 5 and make it some beauty contest we're we take the same Group of 5 teams I am all for a App st.-Fresno St. Group of 5 title or like a Ball State-Navy title game and not seeing the same team teams on a yearly basis like in Power 5
1. If we’re going to split the G5 and P4 we need to reevaluate who the best college football teams are. No media markets no historical keepers like Vanderbilt. Best 65-70 teams. (Boise State would beat Vanderbilt year after year if they played). 2. My compromise is to have the 2 highest ranked G5 champs play each other for the CFP spot. Liberty vs SMU would have been very fun to watch. 3. Teams like Boise State should not accept that they play a lower level of football than Vanderbilt
Don't worry about Vanderbilt. That's family business (SEC) and doesn't concern you or that half of the country. There are 3 revenue generating sports, and many have a hard time with the 3rd. Vanderbilt wins and competes for championships in baseball. Which of the 3 can Boise say that about?
@@tremoore61 This is about football. Not baseball and why should Boise State not be worried? There is no logical reason why Vanderbilt football should be playing for a higher championship.
@scottyclayton2501 this is why y'all will forever be on the outside looking in. Vanderbilt isn't a football only member! And if it was only about football, y'all still wouldn't be of any interest to the SEC. But you go right on and continue to vent and hate on Vanderbilt. When revenue share happens, y'all will be envious of them. So I know it's just bitterness.
@@tremoore61 I know that. FBS/FCS split is football only. If they were to split P4/G5 IT WOULD BE A FOOTBALL ONLY IDEA. So … Boise State shouldn’t accept they play a lower level of football than Vanderbilt. You don’t have to promote Boise, simply just put the best teams in the P4 of their is a football only split (like what is being purposed
@scottyclayton2501 but that isn't Vanderbilt. The fact is they do play a different level of football, they struggle, but they play against a higher level than Boise. You can play the "what if" game about Boise playing Vanderbilt's schedule, but that will change nothing. Or you can try the comparison test, seeing the outcome vs. similar opponents. The sad fact is that those lower tier schools throw everything at Vanderbilt like it's their Super Bowl simply because it's an SEC team. None of these things is going to make a difference. They are a founding member of the SEC family. And won't be going anywhere as long as the SEC is intact. This type of loyalty to the weakest family member might seem strange to you, but that's OK, it's family business. The separation between Vandy and Boise is about to become Grand Canyon like. Then you'll start to use them as an example as what's possible if only y'all got the same money. Omitting the fact that they're in a better recruiting area.
I had a plan that I felt would be a solid college football break away scenario that could be pretty cool with a 16 team playoff, 80 teams in a super league, 8 divisions geographically divided, collectively bargained contract of equal revenue, a salary cap NIL with rules about transferring and portal changes, a 12 game schedule with 3 out of division games decided by a lottery system, 2 year home and home and then redraft new out of division opponents every 2 years, and a schedule release by the league that keeps traditional rivalries scheduled as close as possible to their long history, and balanced schedules where teams play equal home and away with exceptions with traditional neutral site games and no more cupcakes. It could be a lot more competitive and force some schools to play a tougher schedule and give more schools a chance to step up and become competitive. If 80 is not enough they could go to 88 or 96 with all division winners getting automatic playoff spot in 16 team playoff plus at large spots and the possibility of having schools like Boise St, San Diego St, Tulsa, Tulane be included. I think 50-60 schools would not be enough but 100 or more is way too many so I felt that 80 would be ideal. Crazy times happening in college sports.
So let me see if I understand your plan. You want an 80 team league, with equal revenue sharing? So basically the wealthiest top 20 will be subsidizing the bottom 60? Wow what a great deal for the bottom 60! On top of that you want to limit salaries and NIL too, I guess because that will make it easier for the bottom 60 to attract and retain talent! However, as a Longhorn fan, I can’t help but wonder why the Longhorns should be required to subsidize Boise State? Any why should NIL and salary opportunities for Longhorn players be limited? What you propose is a great deal for the small, beggar schools. Not such a great deal for the wealthy schools and athletes. The wealthy schools will Have to give up tens of millions in revenue, and the athletes will see their earnings go down! All so that your 80 team league is sustainable!
@@haroldflashman4687 it’s called collective bargaining which is what pro sports leagues use to maximize the value for all teams. I am a Texas fan and understand the anger of subsidizing the other schools who don’t carry their own brand value at an elite level but part of the new landscape of college football is a more equal revenue landscape to keep a competitive product but the upside is the fans get stronger more exciting competitive games with the the traditional elite teams having to be on a more level playing field. Maybe it will hurt Texas but it may not if they keep recruiting strong top 5 classes and add quality transfer portal players. All I know is college football is changing quickly and it’s confusing on how it will all end up in the end of all of these moves coming soon. Some want fewer teams in a super conference but I would prefer more teams that deserve to be in a new system if they can financially survive and thrive. I was just putting out my opinion of something I think would be a pretty awesome super league of college football.
@@jrhaney11 collective bargaining, and equal revenue sharing only work for the NFL because they have a very limited supply of teams! The NFL/pro model will totally breakdown if it went to 80 teams. What works well for 30 teams will not work for 80 teams! There’s a reason why the pro-leagues are so careful in expansion. There has to be a net financial benefit to the existing members. The 80 team league you pine for will result in huge financial hits to the blue bloods and their conferences. Basically the equal revenue sharing model for 80 teams means tens of millions $ a year less for the blue bloods! It’s a great deal for the have nots, since they get millions without having to sacrifice anything! On top of that you want to limit salary and NIL. Again a great deal for the have nots, but absolutely bad deal for the players. I believe a 48 team league is ideal and fairest if you are going with equal revenue sharing! Also keep in mind that NFL has few small market teams so the subsidy from big market teams is not overwhelming. Your proposed 80 team league will require a massive transfer or wealth from the likes of Texas to the likes of Fresno State! It’s an unworkable model. There are only so many TV spots. Again, the NFL model breaks down if you suddenly have 80 teams that need to be on TV. The networks will want the most valuable match ups to be on TV. But your model requires equal exposure. You’ll end up with situations where TX v UGA may not be on TV because the networks have to put Boise State v San Diego State on. Great for SDSU and BSU, not so great for Texas and UGA. SDSU and BSU will be building their brands at the expense of Texas and UGA brands! An 80 team is totally unsustainable!
@scottyclayton2501 | agreed. But if always been that way. Location location location. That's why trans like Rutgers, Northwestern, Mississippi St and South Carolina are setting pretty right but now. They are located in advantageous locations.
I believe the small schools need to go on the offensive. I think ESPN and fox would fold up if the Big XII, ACC, AAC, MW, CUSA, and Sunbelt united and left them and the ncaa. I think there are more pure college football fans that would support what's left of the sport we've come to love than the NFL light Big 10 and SEC. What made college football great was the anticipation of the big game. Big games with big brands every week would be fun for a while but would become stale. I love watching the Boise States v Oklahomas matchups.i also love Michigan v OSU, but it'll lose that mystique real quick.
I enjoy watching MW football. I enjoy watching Boise St. However, I cannot stand to watch blue uniforms on a blue field. It hurts the eyes. Boise St only hurts themselves by continuing to keep that turf because it has to effect ratings.
I get that the Group of 5 want to be a part of the College Football 12 team playoff. I am all for a 8 team Group of 5 College Football Playoff because let's face it at the end of the day it's all about the Traditional Football powers in the Power 5 and the Group of 5 will never get a chance even in a 12 team playoff!!!
Boise should join OSU and WSU in the new Pac 12.
Agreed. With San Diego State and a UNLV too.
Something should be said for keeping your conference competition regional as much as you can. Traveling will take a toll on the likes of USC and UCLA budgets as well as their athletes. It will definitely backfire.
Would you rather be possibly a national championship contender in the G5 if they had a playoff system or a middle of the pack Big10 Purdue or SEC cellar dweller like Vanderbilt with zero chance of ever even having a chance at qualifying for the college football playoff?
I wouldn’t mind seeing an 8 team G5 playoff in addition to this system though. The highest ranked G5 still makes the “big playoff”
4 G5 champs + 1 G5 runner up of the league in the “big playoff” + 3 G5 at larges.
The G5 tournament championship plays the same day prior to the national championship as like an undercard leading up to a headlining fight. So does the FCS natty.
“D1 National Championship Saturday”
FCS title - morning/noon
G5 title - Afternoon
CFP title- evening
Give college fans some appetizers leading up to a title on a SATURDAY
We definitely need the national championships on Saturday nights. I don't think it would make sense for the highest ranked G5 team to be delegated to the CFP if a G5 playoff exists. They're not going to ever let them get a home game and they will likely always be matched up against the 2nd best team from the Big 10 or SEC. In the long run I don't ever see that 5-seed losing to a G5 team at home. It would make more sense for that G5 team for compete in a game that it could actually be favored and truly have a chance to retain an undefeated or that 1-loss season.
No thanks… you want a g5 to play 3 extra games in a g5 playoff just to make the cfb playoff?… maybe the top 2 g5s playing for a spot in the cfb playoff but that’s it
@@joshgrothues7871 But then you run into the same issue with the Power 5 on the debate on who the best 2 teams are and who should really play for that National Championship
@@curtissharpe-gb1mb what do you mean
@TheJasonJackson84 I guess I believe that if that were the model for a Group of 5 playoff we would have to worry about the 8 teams being the 8 best or if someone somehow got left out that was deserving of getting in. Are we only going to allow certain Group of 5 conferences and there teams in are going to leave like a CUSA or MAC out and just take the AAC or Mountain West every year. That is what I hope doesn't happen if we go this route. I love Group of 5 Football that's all I watch along with the FCS if we go this way I hope we don't become like the Power 5 and make it some beauty contest we're we take the same Group of 5 teams I am all for a App st.-Fresno St. Group of 5 title or like a Ball State-Navy title game and not seeing the same team teams on a yearly basis like in Power 5
1. If we’re going to split the G5 and P4 we need to reevaluate who the best college football teams are. No media markets no historical keepers like Vanderbilt. Best 65-70 teams. (Boise State would beat Vanderbilt year after year if they played).
2. My compromise is to have the 2 highest ranked G5 champs play each other for the CFP spot. Liberty vs SMU would have been very fun to watch.
3. Teams like Boise State should not accept that they play a lower level of football than Vanderbilt
Don't worry about Vanderbilt. That's family business (SEC) and doesn't concern you or that half of the country. There are 3 revenue generating sports, and many have a hard time with the 3rd. Vanderbilt wins and competes for championships in baseball. Which of the 3 can Boise say that about?
@@tremoore61 This is about football. Not baseball and why should Boise State not be worried? There is no logical reason why Vanderbilt football should be playing for a higher championship.
@scottyclayton2501 this is why y'all will forever be on the outside looking in. Vanderbilt isn't a football only member! And if it was only about football, y'all still wouldn't be of any interest to the SEC. But you go right on and continue to vent and hate on Vanderbilt. When revenue share happens, y'all will be envious of them. So I know it's just bitterness.
@@tremoore61 I know that. FBS/FCS split is football only. If they were to split P4/G5 IT WOULD BE A FOOTBALL ONLY IDEA. So … Boise State shouldn’t accept they play a lower level of football than Vanderbilt. You don’t have to promote Boise, simply just put the best teams in the P4 of their is a football only split (like what is being purposed
@scottyclayton2501 but that isn't Vanderbilt. The fact is they do play a different level of football, they struggle, but they play against a higher level than Boise. You can play the "what if" game about Boise playing Vanderbilt's schedule, but that will change nothing. Or you can try the comparison test, seeing the outcome vs. similar opponents. The sad fact is that those lower tier schools throw everything at Vanderbilt like it's their Super Bowl simply because it's an SEC team. None of these things is going to make a difference. They are a founding member of the SEC family. And won't be going anywhere as long as the SEC is intact. This type of loyalty to the weakest family member might seem strange to you, but that's OK, it's family business. The separation between Vandy and Boise is about to become Grand Canyon like. Then you'll start to use them as an example as what's possible if only y'all got the same money. Omitting the fact that they're in a better recruiting area.
I had a chance to meet Jeremiah in cda last night. What a stellar dude. I hope he retires from BSU. We need his leadership!
I had a plan that I felt would be a solid college football break away scenario that could be pretty cool with a 16 team playoff, 80 teams in a super league, 8 divisions geographically divided, collectively bargained contract of equal revenue, a salary cap NIL with rules about transferring and portal changes, a 12 game schedule with 3 out of division games decided by a lottery system, 2 year home and home and then redraft new out of division opponents every 2 years, and a schedule release by the league that keeps traditional rivalries scheduled as close as possible to their long history, and balanced schedules where teams play equal home and away with exceptions with traditional neutral site games and no more cupcakes. It could be a lot more competitive and force some schools to play a tougher schedule and give more schools a chance to step up and become competitive. If 80 is not enough they could go to 88 or 96 with all division winners getting automatic playoff spot in 16 team playoff plus at large spots and the possibility of having schools like Boise St, San Diego St, Tulsa, Tulane be included. I think 50-60 schools would not be enough but 100 or more is way too many so I felt that 80 would be ideal. Crazy times happening in college sports.
So let me see if I understand your plan. You want an 80 team league, with equal revenue sharing? So basically the wealthiest top 20 will be subsidizing the bottom 60? Wow what a great deal for the bottom 60! On top of that you want to limit salaries and NIL too, I guess because that will make it easier for the bottom 60 to attract and retain talent!
However, as a Longhorn fan, I can’t help but wonder why the Longhorns should be required to subsidize Boise State? Any why should NIL and salary opportunities for Longhorn players be limited?
What you propose is a great deal for the small, beggar schools. Not such a great deal for the wealthy schools and athletes. The wealthy schools will
Have to give up tens of millions in revenue, and the athletes will see their earnings go down! All so that your 80 team league is sustainable!
@@haroldflashman4687 it’s called collective bargaining which is what pro sports leagues use to maximize the value for all teams. I am a Texas fan and understand the anger of subsidizing the other schools who don’t carry their own brand value at an elite level but part of the new landscape of college football is a more equal revenue landscape to keep a competitive product but the upside is the fans get stronger more exciting competitive games with the the traditional elite teams having to be on a more level playing field. Maybe it will hurt Texas but it may not if they keep recruiting strong top 5 classes and add quality transfer portal players. All I know is college football is changing quickly and it’s confusing on how it will all end up in the end of all of these moves coming soon. Some want fewer teams in a super conference but I would prefer more teams that deserve to be in a new system if they can financially survive and thrive. I was just putting out my opinion of something I think would be a pretty awesome super league of college football.
@@jrhaney11 collective bargaining, and equal revenue sharing only work for the NFL because they have a very limited supply of teams! The NFL/pro model will totally breakdown if it went to 80 teams. What works well for 30 teams will not work for 80 teams!
There’s a reason why the pro-leagues are so careful in expansion. There has to be a net financial benefit to the existing members. The 80 team league you pine for will result in huge financial hits to the blue bloods and their conferences.
Basically the equal revenue sharing model for 80 teams means tens of millions $ a year less for the blue bloods! It’s a great deal for the have nots, since they get millions without having to sacrifice anything!
On top of that you want to limit salary and NIL. Again a great deal for the have nots, but absolutely bad deal for the players.
I believe a 48 team league is ideal and fairest if you are going with equal revenue sharing!
Also keep in mind that NFL has few small market teams so the subsidy from big market teams is not overwhelming. Your proposed 80 team league will require a massive transfer or wealth from the likes of Texas to the likes of Fresno State! It’s an unworkable model.
There are only so many TV spots. Again, the NFL model breaks down if you suddenly have 80 teams that need to be on TV. The networks will want the most valuable match ups to be on TV. But your model requires equal exposure. You’ll end up with situations where TX v UGA may not be on TV because the networks have to put Boise State v San Diego State on. Great for SDSU and BSU, not so great for Texas and UGA. SDSU and BSU will be building their brands at the expense of Texas and UGA brands!
An 80 team is totally unsustainable!
Boise and Idaho are very beautiful.
And with an extremely low population and tv market
It shouldn’t matter if they have a good football team. But that’s the world we live in
@scottyclayton2501 | agreed. But if always been that way. Location location location. That's why trans like Rutgers, Northwestern, Mississippi St and South Carolina are setting pretty right but now. They are located in advantageous locations.
@@shallojalloh That’s why Boise State shouldn’t accept that they play a lower level of football than Vanderbilt
@scottyclayton2501 | "accept" they have no choice my guy. They are stuck in G5 land. Their best hope is to become the NDst of the G5 teams.
I believe the small schools need to go on the offensive. I think ESPN and fox would fold up if the Big XII, ACC, AAC, MW, CUSA, and Sunbelt united and left them and the ncaa. I think there are more pure college football fans that would support what's left of the sport we've come to love than the NFL light Big 10 and SEC. What made college football great was the anticipation of the big game. Big games with big brands every week would be fun for a while but would become stale. I love watching the Boise States v Oklahomas matchups.i also love Michigan v OSU, but it'll lose that mystique real quick.
Yep Those big matchups start to suck due good team becoming the new Vandy in the NFL lite.
I enjoy watching MW football. I enjoy watching Boise St. However, I cannot stand to watch blue uniforms on a blue field. It hurts the eyes. Boise St only hurts themselves by continuing to keep that turf because it has to effect ratings.
Your opinion.
no it doesn't blue turf its cfb iconic.Boise St actually for a G5 gets good ratings and viewership.
Does the opposite
Boise State.
Roll Tide.
The Big and $EC will have to care, which they don't.
They don’t have to! So why should they?
@@haroldflashman4687 For doing the right thing for the good of college sports?? Lol...of course not, lets just finish everyone else off.
@@dg1019 what is it doing the “right thing” requires B10/SEC to give up millions? What’s in it for them.
@@haroldflashman4687 I dunno, looking at the big picture and thinking college football becoming 2 conferences is not good long term.
@@dg1019 if those 2 conferences encompass 85%+ of the total fanbase, the sport will be just fine!
The G5 should expand into FCS and create a league that would get attention.
It would not get attention
Look at the C-USA
Can’t get any worse.
I get that the Group of 5 want to be a part of the College Football 12 team playoff. I am all for a 8 team Group of 5 College Football Playoff because let's face it at the end of the day it's all about the Traditional Football powers in the Power 5 and the Group of 5 will never get a chance even in a 12 team playoff!!!
No thanks… FBS is one level with 134 schools