I agree. It's already a de facto professional league, but with a lot of glaring flaws that are holdovers from back when it was actually an amateur sport.

Collective Bargaining is coming next

The NCAA has nothing to do with the playoffs/bowls.

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

The biggest complaint is pretending like other conferences actually matter. 2 G5 teams? The Big 12 team has sucked every year but this one. Tech may be a perennial playoff team now because of their budget, but it still remains to be seen if they can compete with the better conferences after their cupcake schedule. We make fun of the the B1G but Tech doesn't even have a close 2nd or 3rd to push them in that craptastic conference.

Making the playoffs bigger isn't a solution because we'll have more ****ty big 12 and ACC teams in. It's more useless first round and creates useless second round games. It will be terrible football

OP is right: The B1G and the SEC will split off. Probably waiting for the ACC implosion to bring those key pieces along. Unfortunately, Tech may be in that conversation as well. But the two mega conferences aren't going to keep pretending like Tulane, James Madison, BYU are playing equivalent football and deserve representation. At least the ACC still has some schools that can put serious talent together. No other conference has that.

It'll be 40 ish teams. Playoffs will be determined objectively like pro sports. Some of that collective bargaining etc may not need to happen though. All that happens is conferences agree to some no coach poaching terms and agree that any transfer within these 40ish teams has to sit a year. Kids coming up from smaller colleges or going down to a smaller college don't have to sit, so the kids can't complain they are being kept from furthering their careers in court.

rootube said:

---

JohnClark929 said:

---

The problems being the insanity around playoffs, coaching contracts, NIL, and the portal.

The large programs need to leave the NCAA and form a professional league with rules that benefit the league as a whole. Yes like the NFL. Rules are needed.

A 24-36 team league can come up with a sensible playoff qualification. As for legal challenges on contracts, pay, and transfers, the league would have the same rights as the NFL; players and coaches are free to leave the league and go to other leagues if they want.

I know this is radical but the current situation isn't sustainable or good for the large schools or fans.

---

As long as we are talking about solutions that will never happen to fix college football I would do the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. College football would be better off if it were more regional not less. Breaking up the SWC and Big 8 and PAC10 was bad for college football.

---

once the two mega conferences split off, you could potentially see that regionality come back by way of divisions. say it's 40 teams, you could see 8 divisions, grouped by geography. The SEC could have done this if they wanted. It would have been easy to go to 4 divisions, grouped geographically, protect old rivalries and make sure every body plays every body every 3 years.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

The biggest complaint is pretending like other conferences actually matter. 2 G5 teams? The Big 12 team has sucked every year but this one. Tech may be a perennial playoff team now because of their budget, but it still remains to be seen if they can compete with the better conferences after their cupcake schedule. We make fun of the the B1G but Tech doesn't even have a close 2nd or 3rd to push them in that craptastic conference.

Making the playoffs bigger isn't a solution because we'll have more ****ty big 12 and ACC teams in. It's more useless first round and creates useless second round games. It will be terrible football

OP is right: The B1G and the SEC will split off. Probably waiting for the ACC implosion to bring those key pieces along. Unfortunately, Tech may be in that conversation as well. But the two mega conferences aren't going to keep pretending like Tulane, James Madison, BYU are playing equivalent football and deserve representation. At least the ACC still has some schools that can put serious talent together. No other conference has that.

It'll be 40 ish teams. Playoffs will be determined objectively like pro sports. Some of that collective bargaining etc may not need to happen though. All that happens is conferences agree to some no coach poaching terms and agree that any transfer within these 40ish teams has to sit a year. Kids coming up from smaller colleges or going down to a smaller college don't have to sit, so the kids can't complain they are being kept from furthering their careers in court.

---

I disagree completely. The issue is not that we invited JMU and Tulane to the playoffs. The issue is that the field is not big enough to logically include them. Are they going to win, no they probably aren't but that is no reason to not invite them to a division of CFB they are already members of.

The problem is not that we let two G5 teams in. The issue is that we excluded a few teams whom could have made a run.

i think we should work the bowls into a 24 team playoff, eliminate championship games and remove all auto bids

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

JohnClark929 said:

---

The problems being the insanity around playoffs, coaching contracts, NIL, and the portal.

The large programs need to leave the NCAA and form a professional league with rules that benefit the league as a whole. Yes like the NFL. Rules are needed.

A 24-36 team league can come up with a sensible playoff qualification. As for legal challenges on contracts, pay, and transfers, the league would have the same rights as the NFL; players and coaches are free to leave the league and go to other leagues if they want.

I know this is radical but the current situation isn't sustainable or good for the large schools or fans.

---

As long as we are talking about solutions that will never happen to fix college football I would do the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. College football would be better off if it were more regional not less. Breaking up the SWC and Big 8 and PAC10 was bad for college football.

---

once the two mega conferences split off, you could potentially see that regionality come back by way of divisions. say it's 40 teams, you could see 8 divisions, grouped by geography. The SEC could have done this if they wanted. It would have been easy to go to 4 divisions, grouped geographically, protect old rivalries and make sure every body plays every body every 3 years.

---

This is 100% wrong. The more likely next step to that terrible plan would be to eliminate the teams with less earning potential. The B10 is already looking to pay top teams disproportionately more than lower tier teams.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

The biggest complaint is pretending like other conferences actually matter. 2 G5 teams? The Big 12 team has sucked every year but this one. Tech may be a perennial playoff team now because of their budget, but it still remains to be seen if they can compete with the better conferences after their cupcake schedule. We make fun of the the B1G but Tech doesn't even have a close 2nd or 3rd to push them in that craptastic conference.

Making the playoffs bigger isn't a solution because we'll have more ****ty big 12 and ACC teams in. It's more useless first round and creates useless second round games. It will be terrible football

OP is right: The B1G and the SEC will split off. Probably waiting for the ACC implosion to bring those key pieces along. Unfortunately, Tech may be in that conversation as well. But the two mega conferences aren't going to keep pretending like Tulane, James Madison, BYU are playing equivalent football and deserve representation. At least the ACC still has some schools that can put serious talent together. No other conference has that.

It'll be 40 ish teams. Playoffs will be determined objectively like pro sports. Some of that collective bargaining etc may not need to happen though. All that happens is conferences agree to some no coach poaching terms and agree that any transfer within these 40ish teams has to sit a year. Kids coming up from smaller colleges or going down to a smaller college don't have to sit, so the kids can't complain they are being kept from furthering their careers in court.

---

I disagree completely. The issue is not that we invited JMU and Tulane to the playoffs. The issue is that the field is not big enough to logically include them. Are they going to win, no they probably aren't but that is no reason to not invite them to a division of CFB they are already members of.

The problem is not that we let two G5 teams in. The issue is that we excluded a few teams whom could have made a run by letting two G5 teams in.

---

FIFY

rootube said:

---

I disagree completely. The issue is not that we invited JMU and Tulane to the playoffs. The issue is that the field is not big enough to logically include them. Are they going to win, no they probably aren't but that is no reason to not invite them to a division of CFB they are already members of.

The problem is not that we let two G5 teams in. The issue is that we excluded a few teams whom could have made a run.

---

Don't remember who said this the other day, but I think it's accurate: Including the G5 this year is like the NBA including a D-League team or the MLB including the best AAA team in their playoffs. We're playing a totally different game.

There have probably been 3 G5 teams in the past 20 years that were on a reasonably even playing field with the big dogs, but that's it. It wouldn't be a huge deal if they were included on those off years, but we also know that had they been in a legit conference, they'd have 3-4 losses and not be in consideration. The gap between the G5 and the top two conference will continue to expand with conference consolidation. The G5 could quasi-compete when the Power 5 was truly the Power 5, because the top talent was diluted through those 60 ish teams. Right now there is really a Power 2, Mid 2 and G5, and the power 2 is pulling further and further away in revenue and talent they can pay for.

TexAg2019 said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

The biggest complaint is pretending like other conferences actually matter. 2 G5 teams? The Big 12 team has sucked every year but this one. Tech may be a perennial playoff team now because of their budget, but it still remains to be seen if they can compete with the better conferences after their cupcake schedule. We make fun of the the B1G but Tech doesn't even have a close 2nd or 3rd to push them in that craptastic conference.

Making the playoffs bigger isn't a solution because we'll have more ****ty big 12 and ACC teams in. It's more useless first round and creates useless second round games. It will be terrible football

OP is right: The B1G and the SEC will split off. Probably waiting for the ACC implosion to bring those key pieces along. Unfortunately, Tech may be in that conversation as well. But the two mega conferences aren't going to keep pretending like Tulane, James Madison, BYU are playing equivalent football and deserve representation. At least the ACC still has some schools that can put serious talent together. No other conference has that.

It'll be 40 ish teams. Playoffs will be determined objectively like pro sports. Some of that collective bargaining etc may not need to happen though. All that happens is conferences agree to some no coach poaching terms and agree that any transfer within these 40ish teams has to sit a year. Kids coming up from smaller colleges or going down to a smaller college don't have to sit, so the kids can't complain they are being kept from furthering their careers in court.

---

I disagree completely. The issue is not that we invited JMU and Tulane to the playoffs. The issue is that the field is not big enough to logically include them. Are they going to win, no they probably aren't but that is no reason to not invite them to a division of CFB they are already members of.

The problem is not that we let two G5 teams in. The issue is that we excluded a few teams whom could have made a run by letting two G5 teams in.

---

FIFY

---

Wrong. Let them in and we can find out. If the field was 24 instead of 12 this would be a non issue. It's funny how CFB fans forget how playoffs work when it comes to CFB but understand in literally ever other sport. If you only invited teams them at had a 90% probably of winning college basketball would have a twelve team playoff and would have tons of controversy and would be a much crappier product.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

JohnClark929 said:

---

The problems being the insanity around playoffs, coaching contracts, NIL, and the portal.

The large programs need to leave the NCAA and form a professional league with rules that benefit the league as a whole. Yes like the NFL. Rules are needed.

A 24-36 team league can come up with a sensible playoff qualification. As for legal challenges on contracts, pay, and transfers, the league would have the same rights as the NFL; players and coaches are free to leave the league and go to other leagues if they want.

I know this is radical but the current situation isn't sustainable or good for the large schools or fans.

---

As long as we are talking about solutions that will never happen to fix college football I would do the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. College football would be better off if it were more regional not less. Breaking up the SWC and Big 8 and PAC10 was bad for college football.

---

once the two mega conferences split off, you could potentially see that regionality come back by way of divisions. say it's 40 teams, you could see 8 divisions, grouped by geography. The SEC could have done this if they wanted. It would have been easy to go to 4 divisions, grouped geographically, protect old rivalries and make sure every body plays every body every 3 years.

---

This is 100% wrong. The more likely next step to that terrible plan would be to eliminate the teams with less earning potential. The B10 is already looking to pay top teams disproportionately more than lower tier teams.

---

Right now there are 34 schools in the power 2. I think 4-6 from the ACC get picked up when it implodes. That puts us close to 40. Maybe the SEC and B1G merger would force some of the lower tiered schools out. I could see that happening. But however many are left standing would still be grouped regionally.

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

You don't see an issue with paying players to play (but not calling it that) and then not having a way to guarantee they play and/or taking away their money when they don't play. Right now, the players hold all of the power and there has to be some sort of balance.

It's hilarious that we all agreed that we needed to include the G5 and we set up rules to make sure that happened and now because the ACC has terrible tiebreaker rules we need to change the rules to exclude the G5. There are only two problems that need corrected. ACC needs to fix their tiebreaker rules and we need more playoff teams. People saying we need some super conference as a solution can jump in a lake.

rootube said:

---

TexAg2019 said:

---

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

The biggest complaint is pretending like other conferences actually matter. 2 G5 teams? The Big 12 team has sucked every year but this one. Tech may be a perennial playoff team now because of their budget, but it still remains to be seen if they can compete with the better conferences after their cupcake schedule. We make fun of the the B1G but Tech doesn't even have a close 2nd or 3rd to push them in that craptastic conference.

Making the playoffs bigger isn't a solution because we'll have more ****ty big 12 and ACC teams in. It's more useless first round and creates useless second round games. It will be terrible football

OP is right: The B1G and the SEC will split off. Probably waiting for the ACC implosion to bring those key pieces along. Unfortunately, Tech may be in that conversation as well. But the two mega conferences aren't going to keep pretending like Tulane, James Madison, BYU are playing equivalent football and deserve representation. At least the ACC still has some schools that can put serious talent together. No other conference has that.

It'll be 40 ish teams. Playoffs will be determined objectively like pro sports. Some of that collective bargaining etc may not need to happen though. All that happens is conferences agree to some no coach poaching terms and agree that any transfer within these 40ish teams has to sit a year. Kids coming up from smaller colleges or going down to a smaller college don't have to sit, so the kids can't complain they are being kept from furthering their careers in court.

---

I disagree completely. The issue is not that we invited JMU and Tulane to the playoffs. The issue is that the field is not big enough to logically include them. Are they going to win, no they probably aren't but that is no reason to not invite them to a division of CFB they are already members of.

The problem is not that we let two G5 teams in. The issue is that we excluded a few teams whom could have made a run by letting two G5 teams in.

---

FIFY

---

Wrong. Let them in and we can find out. If the field was 24 instead of 12 this would be a non issue. It's funny how CFB fans forget how playoffs work when it comes to CFB but understand in literally ever other sport. If you only invited teams them at had a 90% probably of winning college basketball would have a twelve team playoff and would have tons of controversy and would be a much crappier product.

---

It's because football is a much more violent, physical sport. Cinderella stories work in basketball because you the ball has to go into the basket, and sometimes the better team is colder than ice. That's why a crazy basketball tournament is fun.

In football, less talented teams just get manhandled. We watch these teams lose by 20+ to legit competition during the season. It's truly boring football. Why do we want to see that in the playoffs?

#1) Power 4 league 24 team playoff with top 8 teams getting 1st round bye (we already have a top 25).
#2) shorten season back to 11 games, P4 schools must play 10 games against P4 competition in either league play or combined with non-league. No independents allowed in this new playoff - Notre Dame join a conference
#3) 6 team playoff for G6 leagues with Top 2 teams getting 1st round bye
#4) reduce # of bowl games and require winning record for possible participation. Increased # of teams in playoffs fills TV inventory allotted to the plethora of bowl games. Bowl attendance sucks and TV viewership drives things

rootube said:

---

It's hilarious that we all agreed that we needed to include the G5 and we set up rules to make sure that happened and now because the ACC has terrible tiebreaker rules we need to change the rules to exclude the G5. There are only two problems that need corrected. ACC needs to fix their tiebreaker rules and we need more playoff teams. People saying we need some super conference as a solution can jump in a lake.

---

Who all agreed to this? I remember plenty of pushback when this was announced. It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid one now.

cevans_40 said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

You don't see an issue with paying players to play (but not calling it that) and then not having a way to guarantee they play and/or taking away their money when they don't play. Right now, the players hold all of the power and there has to be some sort of balance.

---

The bigger issue is that they weren't being paid before to me. That and the fact that they were being paid under the table and that the deck was stacked against the on blue bloods.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

What is so great about watching ****ty teams getting owned in the playoffs? We already have to watch it throughout the year. Why is it a positive thing to see in the postseason?

Quote:

---

You don't see an issue with paying players to play (but not calling it that) and then not having a way to guarantee they play and/or taking away their money when they don't play. Right now, the players hold all of the power and there has to be some sort of balance.

---

Which is why the Georgia collective assigned their contract rights to the university and they are challenging a player who broke the contract and transferred to Missouri.

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

It's hilarious that we all agreed that we needed to include the G5 and we set up rules to make sure that happened and now because the ACC has terrible tiebreaker rules we need to change the rules to exclude the G5. There are only two problems that need corrected. ACC needs to fix their tiebreaker rules and we need more playoff teams. People saying we need some super conference as a solution can jump in a lake.

---

Who all agreed to this? I remember plenty of pushback when this was announced. It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid one now.

---

The committee literally made rules to include them as they should. If you want to break them off into different divisions fine but it would harm those teams and make football worse overall. They are in the same division but we are going to get mad if they get invited to playoffs for a division they are part of.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

Its already lost. We just don't know it yet.

A separate league would likely have no eligibility limits and be a competitor to the nfl.

They are already trying to increase eligibility to 5 years and waive a bunch of other reasons.

Need to change up the playoffs, bowls, conference championships so they are not in conflict with each other.

rootube said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

You don't see an issue with paying players to play (but not calling it that) and then not having a way to guarantee they play and/or taking away their money when they don't play. Right now, the players hold all of the power and there has to be some sort of balance.

---

The bigger issue is that they weren't being paid before to me. That and the fact that they were being paid under the table and that the deck was stacked against the on blue bloods.

---

So because they weren't being paid before (they were), now we need to create a system that will bankrupt half of college athletic programs and further benefit the blue-bloods?

The Banned said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Go watch the NFL.

If cfb fans dont start saying no to this bs we're going to lose the sport

---

What is so great about watching ****ty teams getting owned in the playoffs? We already have to watch it throughout the year. Why is it a positive thing to see in the postseason?

---

Teams are going to lose. Some are going to get blown out Nobody really cares that they are in as much as the teams that were excluded. If teams like ND, Texas, Vanderbilt, and others were in this wouldn't be a big deal

cevans_40 said:

---

rootube said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

You don't see an issue with paying players to play (but not calling it that) and then not having a way to guarantee they play and/or taking away their money when they don't play. Right now, the players hold all of the power and there has to be some sort of balance.

---

The bigger issue is that they weren't being paid before to me. That and the fact that they were being paid under the table and that the deck was stacked against the on blue bloods.

---

So because they weren't being paid before (they were), now we need to create a system that will bankrupt half of college athletic programs and further benefit the blue-bloods?

---

We are paying Jimbo $70M to not coach and players are going to bankrupt CFB? I don't think so.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

This is a terrible "solution" the only saving grace is that it is unlikely to ever happen.

Here are solutions.

Coaching salaries/buyouts- If you don't like the money involved change the contracts or don't fire the coach. Easy.

NIL- I don't really see an issue here. The biggest teams crying about this are some of the former "blue bloods" who are threatened by teams like A&M. It's hilarious that people who complain about escalating player pay somehow pretend it was a level playing field before NIL. Easy


Playoffs - We can come up with a sensible playoff in 10 minutes. Expand the playoffs and don't pretend 16 is the logical next step. Twenty four + is the logical next step. More playoff football is good and bowl games are bad. Easy.

---

The biggest complaint is pretending like other conferences actually matter. 2 G5 teams? The Big 12 team has sucked every year but this one. Tech may be a perennial playoff team now because of their budget, but it still remains to be seen if they can compete with the better conferences after their cupcake schedule. We make fun of the the B1G but Tech doesn't even have a close 2nd or 3rd to push them in that craptastic conference.

Making the playoffs bigger isn't a solution because we'll have more ****ty big 12 and ACC teams in. It's more useless first round and creates useless second round games. It will be terrible football

OP is right: The B1G and the SEC will split off. Probably waiting for the ACC implosion to bring those key pieces along. Unfortunately, Tech may be in that conversation as well. But the two mega conferences aren't going to keep pretending like Tulane, James Madison, BYU are playing equivalent football and deserve representation. At least the ACC still has some schools that can put serious talent together. No other conference has that.

It'll be 40 ish teams. Playoffs will be determined objectively like pro sports. Some of that collective bargaining etc may not need to happen though. All that happens is conferences agree to some no coach poaching terms and agree that any transfer within these 40ish teams has to sit a year. Kids coming up from smaller colleges or going down to a smaller college don't have to sit, so the kids can't complain they are being kept from furthering their careers in court.

---

I disagree completely. The issue is not that we invited JMU and Tulane to the playoffs. The issue is that the field is not big enough to logically include them. Are they going to win, no they probably aren't but that is no reason to not invite them to a division of CFB they are already members of.

The problem is not that we let two G5 teams in. The issue is that we excluded a few teams whom could have made a run.

---

This.
Just expand and give each of the G5 conference champions a spot. 5 spots, so what. Let them play the lower seeded P4 teams in the first round. Whoever doesn't like expansion because it waters down the competition (true) just don't watch round 1 or maybe even 2. The latter rounds will be great as the cream rises to the top. Plus it's more opportunity for home games in the first few rounds. More football is a good thing. And there's plenty of time. Quit taking 2-3 weeks off to get started.

rootube said:

---

The Banned said:

---

rootube said:

---

It's hilarious that we all agreed that we needed to include the G5 and we set up rules to make sure that happened and now because the ACC has terrible tiebreaker rules we need to change the rules to exclude the G5. There are only two problems that need corrected. ACC needs to fix their tiebreaker rules and we need more playoff teams. People saying we need some super conference as a solution can jump in a lake.

---

Who all agreed to this? I remember plenty of pushback when this was announced. It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid one now.

---

The committee literally made rules to include them as they should. If you want to break them off into different divisions fine but it would harm those teams and make football worse overall. They are in the same division but we are going to get mad if they get invited to playoffs for a division they are part of.

---

You and are use the same logic, but we have different opinions on what is better or worse for college football. I don't see how watching tulane and james madison lose by 3 touchdowns in the first round of the playoffs is good for the sport, but you do. I don't see how Oregon and Ole Miss getting tune up games while A&M, Miami, Bama and Oklahoma have to go into a dogfight is fair, but I guess you do.

Separate divisions levels the playing field for all involved. The G5 schools can legitimately compete for a championship for the first time in decades, and the Power schools don't have to sit out of the playoffs to pacify the schools who have no business being there.