If the P5 separates itself completely from the G5 (and we're well on our way to that), lots of college football fans will lose interest. Right now, CFB has about 1/4 the interest that the NFL has. Look for that to drop further if we get an independent P5 that ignores the G5.

(02-19-2015 07:33 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  If the P5 separates itself completely from the G5 (and we're well on our way to that), lots of college football fans will lose interest. Right now, CFB has about 1/4 the interest that the NFL has. Look for that to drop further if we get an independent P5 that ignores the G5.

Agreed. I won't be watching anybody but the AAC

(02-19-2015 07:33 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  If the P5 separates itself completely from the G5 (and we're well on our way to that), lots of college football fans will lose interest. Right now, CFB has about 1/4 the interest that the NFL has. Look for that to drop further if we get an independent P5 that ignores the G5.

Why? The data shows that sports fans overwhelmingly care about the "big name" teams. They care about the USCs, Alabamas, Notre Dames, and Ohio States. That's what draws them to the stadiums and TV sets.

I guess I could have made the same prediction when Division I was divided into I and IA, and then FBS and FCS. But it didn't matter, because even though many FCS programs have devoted fan bases, they don't move the needle nationally. Same with G5, which is they are G5.

(02-18-2015 05:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 12:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  Here are my 72 teams. They are divided into eight 9-team divisions. They are listed in order of each schools average attendance over the past 4 years. The average attendance for each proposed division is in parentheses after the division name.

Pacific (49,315)
USC, Washington, UCLA, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, Oregon St, San Diego St, Washington St

Southwest (50,661)
Oklahoma, BYU, Texas Tech, Arizona St, Oklahoma St, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Boise St

Prairie (57,014)
Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Iowa St, Kansas State, Illinois. Minnesota, Kansas, Northwestern

East (66,842)
Michigan, Ohio St, Penn State, Michigan St, Purdue, Rutgers, Indiana, Maryland, UConn

Northeast (44,466)
Notre Dame, Kentucky, Louisville, Cincy, West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest

Atlantic (52,623)
Clemson, FSU, Va Tech, NC State, UNC, Miami, Ga Tech, Virginia, Duke

Southeast (73,658)
Alabama, Tenn, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, S. Carolina, ECU, UCF, Vanderbilt

Central (66,991)
Texas, LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Miss St, Ole Miss, Baylor, TCU

Here is where I disagree with you.

Conferences will want to save some sense of pride and tradition. So why not simply break up into 7 team divisions along conference divisions lines? In other words, B1G West, B1G East, etc.

I think retaining some semblance of that conference tradition will trump trying to package the divisions as geographically neatly as possible.

Each PAC division could add one more and each XII division could add two more. One of those adds obviously has to be Notre Dame. But from there, those last five spots will be an intense battle.

Each team in a particular division plays all six of its division mates (3/3 home/away). Then do something clever with the remaining six games (play a team in another division that finished the same division rank last year, cross-division rivalry games, etc.)


Of course, I can guarantee that the rest of the G5 teams that are left out of this sweet deal will come charging headlong with a fat lawsuit. There are still plenty of G5 teams left that can get their senator's ear. So you might have to include the entire G5 in the party.

In my OP, I proposed a single 72 member entity. If you look closely at the divisional alignments, you might note that they could easily represent four 18 member conferences, aligned as closely as possible with the current B10, PAC, SEC and ACC, and then geographically divided into divisions. They could also be viewed as a de facto merger of the ACC and Old Big East, combined with a more or less equal dispersal of the original B12 teams among the SEC, B10 and PAC. Then, the top non AQ teams from the BCS era were promoted to this top tier of college football.

I believe the gulf that divides these 72 schools from all the rest is vast enough to survive any lawsuits the remaining G5 schools might launch. I think they can make a convincing case that the non-AQ schools from the BCs era were promoted for reasons that were anything but arbitrary.

^ If you use this P4 model, it would be relatively easy to accommodate a 16 team playoff, with four teams from each conference. The first round could be played on the Friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving. No selection committees or rankings are needed.

The PAC, for example could have the champion of the Pacific division host the second place team from the Southwest division, and the champion of the Southwest division host the second place team from the Pacific division. Then, the winners of those two games would meet at a neutral site the following week to determine the conference champion to represent them in the Rose Bowl against the Big Ten champion. The ACC and SEC champs would meet in the Sugar Bowl. The final game would be at Jerry World in Dallas.

This method gives each conference two more playoff games to enhance the revenue streams they don't have to share. I don't think it would be necessary to include any more bowls in the playoff rotation. But the four conferences could establish a collaborative method to ensure that A) Each conference is assured at least one spot in a second NY6 bowl, and B) that the remaining four spots go to the most deserving teams (presumably, here is where ranking and SOS might come into play).

(02-19-2015 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  In my OP, I proposed a single 72 member entity. If you look closely at the divisional alignments, you might note that they could easily represent four 18 member conferences, aligned as closely as possible with the current B10, PAC, SEC and ACC, and then geographically divided into divisions. They could also be viewed as a de facto merger of the ACC and Old Big East, combined with a more or less equal dispersal of the original B12 teams among the SEC, B10 and PAC. Then, the top non AQ teams from the BCS era were promoted to this top tier of college football.

I believe the gulf that divides these 72 schools from all the rest is vast enough to survive any lawsuits the remaining G5 schools might launch. I think they can make a convincing case that the non-AQ schools from the BCs era were promoted for reasons that were anything but arbitrary.

Either way, I like each division having either 7 or 9 teams per division as it gives an even number of home/away for intra-division games, safely assuming every team would play every other team in the division.

Your proposal: 4 conferences * 2 divisions per conference * 9 teams per division = 72 teams

1) PAC + Boise, San Diego St, BYU, Okla, Okla St, Texas Tech
2) B1G + Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, UConn
3) ACC + ND (football), Kentucky%, Cincy, West Virginia
4) SEC + Texas, TCU, Baylor, ECU, UCF

Comments: I don't think there's any way in heck Texas would go with the SEC group. Also, Kentucky wouldn't leave the SEC. I think Texas would prefer the B1G or the PAC. There's some room to slide around.

As far as your upgrades go, Boise and BYU I can see. Not sure on SDSU. Nor ECU and UCF. And how pissed would USF be?


My proposal: 5 conferences * 2 divisions per conference * 7 teams per division = 70 teams

1) PAC + 2
2) B1G
3) ACC + ND (football)
4) SEC
5) XII + Louisville%, 3 more

At this point, all I know is that Notre Dame would have to be one of the teams added. In this rare case, I could see ACC making an attempt to trade one of their teams to the XII in order to make room for ND as a full member. Probably would have to be Louisville, who is at least reasonable as a XII member.

From there I have no idea which two for the PAC and which additional three for the XII make the most sense. Every MWC will appeal to the PAC and every AAC school will appeal to the XII.

(02-19-2015 11:46 AM)ken d Wrote:  ^ If you use this P4 model, it would be relatively easy to accommodate a 16 team playoff, with four teams from each conference. The first round could be played on the Friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving. No selection committees or rankings are needed.

The PAC, for example could have the champion of the Pacific division host the second place team from the Southwest division, and the champion of the Southwest division host the second place team from the Pacific division. Then, the winners of those two games would meet at a neutral site the following week to determine the conference champion to represent them in the Rose Bowl against the Big Ten champion. The ACC and SEC champs would meet in the Sugar Bowl. The final game would be at Jerry World in Dallas.

This method gives each conference two more playoff games to enhance the revenue streams they don't have to share. I don't think it would be necessary to include any more bowls in the playoff rotation. But the four conferences could establish a collaborative method to ensure that A) Each conference is assured at least one spot in a second NY6 bowl, and B) that the remaining four spots go to the most deserving teams (presumably, here is where ranking and SOS might come into play).

Your proposal does have the advantage that four power conference teams line up nicely for the four playoff spots.

Mark my words: there won't be any movement in the playoff structure until the contract has run its course and CFP II is negotiated.


While I didn't detail it above, the quickest way to "four for four" is to just split up the XII teams among the other four conferences. That gives 64 teams plus ND as an independent (sorta).

You could do that with the following arrangement:

1) PAC + Baylor, TX Tech, Okla, Okla St
2) B1G + Iowa St, Texas
3) ACC + West Virginia, TCU
4) SEC + Kansas, Kansas St

That's a tough game to play! Hard to fit all those teams into those four conferences, mainly because you can't split the Okla and KS schools and no one really wants Iowa St.

(02-19-2015 08:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 07:33 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  If the P5 separates itself completely from the G5 (and we're well on our way to that), lots of college football fans will lose interest. Right now, CFB has about 1/4 the interest that the NFL has. Look for that to drop further if we get an independent P5 that ignores the G5.

Why? The data shows that sports fans overwhelmingly care about the "big name" teams. They care about the USCs, Alabamas, Notre Dames, and Ohio States. That's what draws them to the stadiums and TV sets.

I guess I could have made the same prediction when Division I was divided into I and IA, and then FBS and FCS. But it didn't matter, because even though many FCS programs have devoted fan bases, they don't move the needle nationally. Same with G5, which is they are G5.

G5 schools generally have smaller fan bases than P5 schools (there is a huge overlap), but G5 fan bases aren't non-existent. If fans of Fresno State and ECU feel they have a chance someday to get to a national championship, they'll watch an Ohio State-Oregon game. But if the Fresno State and ECU fans feel their schools have absolutely no shot ever at a national championship, they'll tune out the P5.

If the P5 thinks they'll *expand* their audience by *reducing* the number of schools allowed to participate, they're on drugs.

(02-19-2015 09:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  In my OP, I proposed a single 72 member entity. If you look closely at the divisional alignments, you might note that they could easily represent four 18 member conferences, aligned as closely as possible with the current B10, PAC, SEC and ACC, and then geographically divided into divisions. They could also be viewed as a de facto merger of the ACC and Old Big East, combined with a more or less equal dispersal of the original B12 teams among the SEC, B10 and PAC. Then, the top non AQ teams from the BCS era were promoted to this top tier of college football.

I believe the gulf that divides these 72 schools from all the rest is vast enough to survive any lawsuits the remaining G5 schools might launch. I think they can make a convincing case that the non-AQ schools from the BCs era were promoted for reasons that were anything but arbitrary.

Either way, I like each division having either 7 or 9 teams per division as it gives an even number of home/away for intra-division games, safely assuming every team would play every other team in the division.

Your proposal: 4 conferences * 2 divisions per conference * 9 teams per division = 72 teams

1) PAC + Boise, San Diego St, BYU, Okla, Okla St, Texas Tech
2) B1G + Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, UConn
3) ACC + ND (football), Kentucky%, Cincy, West Virginia
4) SEC + Texas, TCU, Baylor, ECU, UCF

Comments: I don't think there's any way in heck Texas would go with the SEC group. Also, Kentucky wouldn't leave the SEC. I think Texas would prefer the B1G or the PAC. There's some room to slide around.

As far as your upgrades go, Boise and BYU I can see. Not sure on SDSU. Nor ECU and UCF. And how pissed would USF be?


My proposal: 5 conferences * 2 divisions per conference * 7 teams per division = 70 teams

1) PAC + 2
2) B1G
3) ACC + ND (football)
4) SEC
5) XII + Louisville%, 3 more

At this point, all I know is that Notre Dame would have to be one of the teams added. In this rare case, I could see ACC making an attempt to trade one of their teams to the XII in order to make room for ND as a full member. Probably would have to be Louisville, who is at least reasonable as a XII member.

From there I have no idea which two for the PAC and which additional three for the XII make the most sense. Every MWC will appeal to the PAC and every AAC school will appeal to the XII.

Louisville says NO to the move thank you.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(02-20-2015 09:09 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 09:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  In my OP, I proposed a single 72 member entity. If you look closely at the divisional alignments, you might note that they could easily represent four 18 member conferences, aligned as closely as possible with the current B10, PAC, SEC and ACC, and then geographically divided into divisions. They could also be viewed as a de facto merger of the ACC and Old Big East, combined with a more or less equal dispersal of the original B12 teams among the SEC, B10 and PAC. Then, the top non AQ teams from the BCS era were promoted to this top tier of college football.

I believe the gulf that divides these 72 schools from all the rest is vast enough to survive any lawsuits the remaining G5 schools might launch. I think they can make a convincing case that the non-AQ schools from the BCs era were promoted for reasons that were anything but arbitrary.

Either way, I like each division having either 7 or 9 teams per division as it gives an even number of home/away for intra-division games, safely assuming every team would play every other team in the division.

Your proposal: 4 conferences * 2 divisions per conference * 9 teams per division = 72 teams

1) PAC + Boise, San Diego St, BYU, Okla, Okla St, Texas Tech
2) B1G + Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, UConn
3) ACC + ND (football), Kentucky%, Cincy, West Virginia
4) SEC + Texas, TCU, Baylor, ECU, UCF

Comments: I don't think there's any way in heck Texas would go with the SEC group. Also, Kentucky wouldn't leave the SEC. I think Texas would prefer the B1G or the PAC. There's some room to slide around.

As far as your upgrades go, Boise and BYU I can see. Not sure on SDSU. Nor ECU and UCF. And how pissed would USF be?


My proposal: 5 conferences * 2 divisions per conference * 7 teams per division = 70 teams

1) PAC + 2
2) B1G
3) ACC + ND (football)
4) SEC
5) XII + Louisville%, 3 more

At this point, all I know is that Notre Dame would have to be one of the teams added. In this rare case, I could see ACC making an attempt to trade one of their teams to the XII in order to make room for ND as a full member. Probably would have to be Louisville, who is at least reasonable as a XII member.

From there I have no idea which two for the PAC and which additional three for the XII make the most sense. Every MWC will appeal to the PAC and every AAC school will appeal to the XII.

Louisville says NO to the move thank you.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

The SEC, Pac 12 and B1G will not break up their conferences. They will add to them but not break them up. Why should they? They are all in a position of strength.

I doubt the ACC would break itself up. The weakest conference is the Big 12.

I still say go to 4 conferences of 20. The SEC, ACC, Pac 12 and B1G.

(02-20-2015 09:09 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Louisville says NO to the move thank you.

If there was a hypothetical mandate for 14 teams, what should the ACC do?

They have 15 including Notre Dame. The last team in was Louisville. I think Notre Dame would prefer to be with Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College (from the old days) and so I think they would choose the ACC as their first choice.

It might make more sense to jettison a team like Wake Forest, but they were an original 1953 member. Not gonna happen. Maybe Miami, then? That's one I could also see. But for simplicity, I just went with the old teacher's union mantra: last in, first out.

(02-20-2015 11:44 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 09:09 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Louisville says NO to the move thank you.

If there was a hypothetical mandate for 14 teams, what should the ACC do?

They have 15 including Notre Dame. The last team in was Louisville. I think Notre Dame would prefer to be with Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College (from the old days) and so I think they would choose the ACC as their first choice.

It might make more sense to jettison a team like Wake Forest, but they were an original 1953 member. Not gonna happen. Maybe Miami, then? That's one I could also see. But for simplicity, I just went with the old teacher's union mantra: last in, first out.

I get that but Louisville would go kicking & screaming. They could also make the case tbat they were a replacement and not an addition therefore Syr, Pitt or partial ND should go. Also I believe FSU & Clemson would push for Louisville to stay & push Wake out. Hypothetically of course.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(02-20-2015 03:35 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I get that but Louisville would go kicking & screaming. They could also make the case tbat they were a replacement and not an addition therefore Syr, Pitt or partial ND should go. Also I believe FSU & Clemson would push for Louisville to stay & push Wake out. Hypothetically of course.

A founding member doesn't get pushed out. Politics. I think you understand that.

Louisville (2014) came after Cuse, Pitt and Notre Dame (2013).


It's all pie in the sky anyway. I'm just saying, in a hypothetical world where (somehow) 14 was a mandated maximum for full members and Notre Dame wanted in -- I think Louisville might be the one forced out.

Otherwise, I could see Miami only because their football is not what it once was anymore and they're in a fringe market, geographically.

But it would be much simpler to just say Louisville because they were last.