FBS is headed toward a P1 in 15 years. What will the alignment be outside that 1 conference? A lot of overlapping, underpaid conferences competing for 1 or 2 token playoff spots. Think of the Sun Belt and C-USA during the 2010s, the MWC and WAC the decade before. Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, and Arizona are all of similar football prowess in a similar region of the country, yet they will all be in 4 different football conferences. Insane!

The recent Super League proposal is an M2 pipe dream. Even if implemented, the top 20-30 brands are still going to break off in 15 years. The best course of action is to ready "Tier II" such that it can absorb the P1 cast offs in a structure that is friendly to tradition, rivalries, and geography.

The 33 teams of the ACC and Big 12 will group with 9 pro/rel spots from the G5. These 7 entities agree to performance-based revenue-sharing, pooled as soon as individual contracts expire. This Super League will have 4 exempt 13th games (fka CCGs) each with guaranteed playoff access (presuming the current playoff structure loosely continues until the P1 breakaway.

No polls. Standings are determined by record, including a maximum of 2 wins over G5/FCS competition. P2 opponents are acceptable. Sub-dividing the 42 will be generally regional, though specifics are not consequential. I'd say 5 divisions of 8 with 2 "independent" slots; division winners and 3 wild-cards make the playoff. Schools can mutually select up to 4 opponents they would like to play. The League will then fill the remainder of the schedules and the divisions to emphasize balance and regionalism.

Arguably this is a boon to the G5. A whole season playing with "the big boys" is a greater reward than a 1 in 5 shot at a single playoff game. The in-conference competition will carry enhanced stakes because Toledo and Miami are playing not just for a trip to Detroit, but for annual trips to Cincinnati and Louisville. Even a lowly team like New Mexico State is energized toward earning a bid into a division with Arizona State and Texas Tech. USF is incentivized to join a division with UCF and Miami; Charlotte could join UNC and Clemson. The G5 conference races will carry a lot more heat.

When (If?) the P1 breakaway finally happens, it'll have pro/rel spots too for the champions of this "Tier II" league. The bottom 12 P2 schools initially relegated will have ready-made TV contracts and regional opponents baked into Year 1. If UCLA is the sole Big Ten school from the West "left behind", they'll have a home with Cal, Stanford, Arizona, and others and won't have to scramble to "rebuild" a western wing of the rump Big Ten.

What is FCS headed to?

I'd rather see a P1 of about 20 and an M4 of about 48.

I'm rooting for a 72 team top tier, with 3 conferences of 24 schools each, in which each of the three have their own media deal, and the rest of the FBS gets no more than one autobid to a playoff. If those 65 or so teams want to form a super-conference to determine who that one bid goes to, that's fine with me. I just don't see it happening. That many schools aren't likely to agree to relegate themselves just so a few of them get better odds of playing in a CFP.

(04-04-2024 08:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm rooting for a 72 team top tier, with 3 conferences of 24 schools each, in which each of the three have their own media deal, and the rest of the FBS gets no more than one autobid to a playoff. If those 65 or so teams want to form a super-conference to determine who that one bid goes to, that's fine with me. I just don't see it happening. That many schools aren't likely to agree to relegate themselves just so a few of them get better odds of playing in a CFP.

With 72, you can have 8 9team conferences. Round robin in all sports, + double round robin in basketball. It would be much like it used to be. Each conference could be a division of a massive conference, which would be the same but possibly a better sell.

(04-04-2024 08:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm rooting for a 72 team top tier, with 3 conferences of 24 schools each, in which each of the three have their own media deal, and the rest of the FBS gets no more than one autobid to a playoff. If those 65 or so teams want to form a super-conference to determine who that one bid goes to, that's fine with me. I just don't see it happening. That many schools aren't likely to agree to relegate themselves just so a few of them get better odds of playing in a CFP.

I agree with 72 teams and maintaining 1 bid for the G# (maybe allowing them a 4 team playoff into the CFP). I disagree about 3 conferences of 24. I'd want 4 conferences of 18 teams, but would settle on 2 conferences of 20 + 2 conferences of 16 (well 1 with 15 + ND). I'd like to have 6 conferences of 12, but I think we're past that bridge. I don't think we're past 4 conferences yet. I think the more conferences we have, the better it will be.

I wouldn't be opposed of dividing the 72 football teams into pods of 4 (excluding BYU and ND - independent + the SEC 10 teams - pods of 5) and playing independent schedules giving each team the flexibility how they desire to schedule, but the conferences aren't giving up power and money to their teams.

If I had to pick the 2 teams to join, I'd go with UCONN and USF. If Oregon St. and/or Washington St. were left out (I don't think they will, but have no issue with SDSU>WSU), Memphis and San Diego St. are my next 2 teams I'd choose to replace them.

(04-04-2024 09:14 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 08:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm rooting for a 72 team top tier, with 3 conferences of 24 schools each, in which each of the three have their own media deal, and the rest of the FBS gets no more than one autobid to a playoff. If those 65 or so teams want to form a super-conference to determine who that one bid goes to, that's fine with me. I just don't see it happening. That many schools aren't likely to agree to relegate themselves just so a few of them get better odds of playing in a CFP.

I agree with 72 teams and maintaining 1 bid for the G# (maybe allowing them a 4 team playoff into the CFP). I disagree about 3 conferences of 24. I'd want 4 conferences of 18 teams, but would settle on 2 conferences of 20 + 2 conferences of 16 (well 1 with 15 + ND). I'd like to have 6 conferences of 12, but I think we're past that bridge. I don't think we're past 4 conferences yet. I think the more conferences we have, the better it will be.

I wouldn't be opposed of dividing the 72 football teams into pods of 4 (excluding BYU and ND - independent + the SEC 10 teams - pods of 5) and playing independent schedules giving each team the flexibility how they desire to schedule, but the conferences aren't giving up power and money to their teams.

If I had to pick the 2 teams to join, I'd go with UCONN and USF. If Oregon St. and/or Washington St. were left out (I don't think they will, but have no issue with SDSU>WSU), Memphis and San Diego St. are my next 2 teams I'd choose to replace them.

Agree. I prefer 12 but I don't see any rational way to split the 34 Big 10/SEC schools into 3 of 12. You've got 10 original Big 10 + 3 eastern schools + 5 western schools, 10 original SEC + 1 eastern school and 5 western. The next two would be FSU and Clemson in the east.

(04-04-2024 07:24 PM)Crayton Wrote:  FBS is headed toward a P1 in 15 years. What will the alignment be outside that 1 conference? A lot of overlapping, underpaid conferences competing for 1 or 2 token playoff spots. Think of the Sun Belt and C-USA during the 2010s, the MWC and WAC the decade before. Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, and Arizona are all of similar football prowess in a similar region of the country, yet they will all be in 4 different football conferences. Insane!

The recent Super League proposal is an M2 pipe dream. Even if implemented, the top 20-30 brands are still going to break off in 15 years. The best course of action is to ready "Tier II" such that it can absorb the P1 cast offs in a structure that is friendly to tradition, rivalries, and geography.

The 33 teams of the ACC and Big 12 will group with 9 pro/rel spots from the G5. These 7 entities agree to performance-based revenue-sharing, pooled as soon as individual contracts expire. This Super League will have 4 exempt 13th games (fka CCGs) each with guaranteed playoff access (presuming the current playoff structure loosely continues until the P1 breakaway.

No polls. Standings are determined by record, including a maximum of 2 wins over G5/FCS competition. P2 opponents are acceptable. Sub-dividing the 42 will be generally regional, though specifics are not consequential. I'd say 5 divisions of 8 with 2 "independent" slots; division winners and 3 wild-cards make the playoff. Schools can mutually select up to 4 opponents they would like to play. The League will then fill the remainder of the schedules and the divisions to emphasize balance and regionalism.

Arguably this is a boon to the G5. A whole season playing with "the big boys" is a greater reward than a 1 in 5 shot at a single playoff game. The in-conference competition will carry enhanced stakes because Toledo and Miami are playing not just for a trip to Detroit, but for annual trips to Cincinnati and Louisville. Even a lowly team like New Mexico State is energized toward earning a bid into a division with Arizona State and Texas Tech. USF is incentivized to join a division with UCF and Miami; Charlotte could join UNC and Clemson. The G5 conference races will carry a lot more heat.

When (If?) the P1 breakaway finally happens, it'll have pro/rel spots too for the champions of this "Tier II" league. The bottom 12 P2 schools initially relegated will have ready-made TV contracts and regional opponents baked into Year 1. If UCLA is the sole Big Ten school from the West "left behind", they'll have a home with Cal, Stanford, Arizona, and others and won't have to scramble to "rebuild" a western wing of the rump Big Ten.

The poor are as greedy as the rich.

Just as P2 doesn't want to share much with M2, M2 doesn't want to share much with G5.

(04-04-2024 09:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 09:14 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 08:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm rooting for a 72 team top tier, with 3 conferences of 24 schools each, in which each of the three have their own media deal, and the rest of the FBS gets no more than one autobid to a playoff. If those 65 or so teams want to form a super-conference to determine who that one bid goes to, that's fine with me. I just don't see it happening. That many schools aren't likely to agree to relegate themselves just so a few of them get better odds of playing in a CFP.

I agree with 72 teams and maintaining 1 bid for the G# (maybe allowing them a 4 team playoff into the CFP). I disagree about 3 conferences of 24. I'd want 4 conferences of 18 teams, but would settle on 2 conferences of 20 + 2 conferences of 16 (well 1 with 15 + ND). I'd like to have 6 conferences of 12, but I think we're past that bridge. I don't think we're past 4 conferences yet. I think the more conferences we have, the better it will be.

I wouldn't be opposed of dividing the 72 football teams into pods of 4 (excluding BYU and ND - independent + the SEC 10 teams - pods of 5) and playing independent schedules giving each team the flexibility how they desire to schedule, but the conferences aren't giving up power and money to their teams.

If I had to pick the 2 teams to join, I'd go with UCONN and USF. If Oregon St. and/or Washington St. were left out (I don't think they will, but have no issue with SDSU>WSU), Memphis and San Diego St. are my next 2 teams I'd choose to replace them.

Agree. I prefer 12 but I don't see any rational way to split the 34 Big 10/SEC schools into 3 of 12. You've got 10 original Big 10 + 3 eastern schools + 5 western schools, 10 original SEC + 1 eastern school and 5 western. The next two would be FSU and Clemson in the east.

Well you have 10 western schools, merge them and get 6 more eastern schools to join the current 4 and you'll have your 2 other 10 divisions.

(04-04-2024 08:52 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 08:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm rooting for a 72 team top tier, with 3 conferences of 24 schools each, in which each of the three have their own media deal, and the rest of the FBS gets no more than one autobid to a playoff. If those 65 or so teams want to form a super-conference to determine who that one bid goes to, that's fine with me. I just don't see it happening. That many schools aren't likely to agree to relegate themselves just so a few of them get better odds of playing in a CFP.

With 72, you can have 8 9team conferences. Round robin in all sports, + double round robin in basketball. It would be much like it used to be. Each conference could be a division of a massive conference, which would be the same but possibly a better sell.

For reasons JR articulated well, there is more value to maintaining a rivalry between the B1G and the SEC than having them in a single conference. And, those two conferences won't agree to giving up the financial advantages they feel (rightly, IMO) that they have earned by sharing their wealth with a third or fourth power conference that has less market value.

With 24 team leagues, these can have four six team divisions which keeps more schools in the playoff mix deeper into the season to enhance the value of late season division games.

(04-05-2024 06:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 08:52 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 08:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm rooting for a 72 team top tier, with 3 conferences of 24 schools each, in which each of the three have their own media deal, and the rest of the FBS gets no more than one autobid to a playoff. If those 65 or so teams want to form a super-conference to determine who that one bid goes to, that's fine with me. I just don't see it happening. That many schools aren't likely to agree to relegate themselves just so a few of them get better odds of playing in a CFP.

With 72, you can have 8 9team conferences. Round robin in all sports, + double round robin in basketball. It would be much like it used to be. Each conference could be a division of a massive conference, which would be the same but possibly a better sell.

For reasons JR articulated well, there is more value to maintaining a rivalry between the B1G and the SEC than having them in a single conference. And, those two conferences won't agree to giving up the financial advantages they feel (rightly, IMO) that they have earned by sharing their wealth with a third or fourth power conference that has less market value.

With 24 team leagues, these can have four six team divisions which keeps more schools in the playoff mix deeper into the season to enhance the value of late season division games.

In my model, the SEC gets to 24 teams by adding 7 from the ACC (Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech and Florida State) plus Kansas from the Big 12.

The B1G adds Cal, Stanford, Notre Dame, Pitt, Colorado and Utah.

The third conference consists of:

Arizona, Arizona State, BYU, Oregon State, San Diego State and Washington State
Baylor, Iowa State, Memphis, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech
Georgia Tech, Houston, Miami, SMU, TCU, and UCF
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Syracuse, Wake Forest, and West Virginia

By adding SDSU and Memphis, this new conference retains all the states currently represented in the AAC Network except Virginia, South Carolina, Indiana and Pennsylvania, but adds Washington, Oregon, Tennessee, Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, West Virginia and Ohio, for a net gain of about 20 million population.

For hoops, these 24 team conferences could function as either two 12 team conferences or three 8 team leagues

(04-05-2024 06:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 08:52 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 08:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm rooting for a 72 team top tier, with 3 conferences of 24 schools each, in which each of the three have their own media deal, and the rest of the FBS gets no more than one autobid to a playoff. If those 65 or so teams want to form a super-conference to determine who that one bid goes to, that's fine with me. I just don't see it happening. That many schools aren't likely to agree to relegate themselves just so a few of them get better odds of playing in a CFP.

With 72, you can have 8 9team conferences. Round robin in all sports, + double round robin in basketball. It would be much like it used to be. Each conference could be a division of a massive conference, which would be the same but possibly a better sell.

For reasons JR articulated well, there is more value to maintaining a rivalry between the B1G and the SEC than having them in a single conference. And, those two conferences won't agree to giving up the financial advantages they feel (rightly, IMO) that they have earned by sharing their wealth with a third or fourth power conference that has less market value.

With 24 team leagues, these can have four six team divisions which keeps more schools in the playoff mix deeper into the season to enhance the value of late season division games.

I get what's going on and why. However, it has too much "have their cake and eat it too".