(08-30-2025 12:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 10:41 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  And the P4, except for UCF, have been in the top division since at least the 1950s. All but a few have been in power conferences or considered major independents the whole time. 21 of the 66 Gs either were FCS or didn't even play football when their seniors were born. 25 weren't in the top division when the BCS started and 29 weren't 30 years ago. Only 32 of the 66 were in the top division at the time of the OU/UGA Supreme Court ruling, only 4 from the CUSA or Sun Belt.

So a lot of the Gs are tagalongs to something others built. They didn't create the value and don't provide the value of the CFP.

Do you really hate when a school puts in 50 million in facilities and commits to move up to FBS? Does that really bring down the sport?

Why is this such a bad thing when NAIA level schools are moving up to D1 to get their hands on NCAA tournament money? For hardly any investment at all.

I hate when they do it for ego on the back of students and taxpayers. I also don't like how all these new schools are diluting the talent pool for the G schools who were there before. The gap seems to be bigger than ever.

Does Ohio "deserve" 6 G schools and Georgia none based on the populations and politics of 100 years ago?

I think the G6 is trying to build a playoff for the one CFP spot. This would be the best way to generate money for the G6 as a whole. I hope the G6 agrees to let the top 4 play for the CFP spot. I hope we all agree to go to regional conferences that play to win the division then the conference and the 4 conference champs make the playoffs for the CFP spot.

The better outcome for the g6 would be a football NIT that the p4 have to participate in. 16 team CFP and a 16 team NIT tournament that include the g6 conference champs and 10 at large that include the p4 teams that have to participate to get any of the payout for the CFP playoffs. Pay each of the teams like an NCAA credit in Basketball. The CFP playoffs get credits for that contract and the NIT have credits for teams participating in the NIT.
THIS IS WHAT THE G6 should be pushing for. Top 32 spots get credits. Top 16 get more credits.

I think the G6 unifying their media rights is a great idea. I don't think it needs to have anything to do with breaking away, but creating a unified voice.

It means the #1 partner will have access to the actual best G6 games every week. It will also mean the conferences aren't battling a content game against each other. They could have more leverage against midweek games being bumped to streaming. It would give them some leverage over broadcasters that need content, rather than letting them pit the conferences against each other.

It could also encourage less internal cannibalization, which I'm guessing university presidents see as rather fruitless. All of this drama for $2 or $4 million more or less probably takes up more of their time than the dollar value is worth.

(08-30-2025 08:04 PM)celldweller7 Wrote:  I think the G6 unifying their media rights is a great idea. I don't think it needs to have anything to do with breaking away, but creating a unified voice.

It means the #1 partner will have access to the actual best G6 games every week. It will also mean the conferences aren't battling a content game against each other. They could have more leverage against midweek games being bumped to streaming. It would give them some leverage over broadcasters that need content, rather than letting them pit the conferences against each other.

It could also encourage less internal cannibalization, which I'm guessing university presidents see as rather fruitless. All of this drama for $2 or $4 million more or less probably takes up more of their time than the dollar value is worth.

What it really does is allows G6 schools to return to regional conferences. So they save on expenses and can drive a harder bargain when they aren’t being played against one another by the networks.

(08-30-2025 12:46 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 12:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 10:41 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  And the P4, except for UCF, have been in the top division since at least the 1950s. All but a few have been in power conferences or considered major independents the whole time. 21 of the 66 Gs either were FCS or didn't even play football when their seniors were born. 25 weren't in the top division when the BCS started and 29 weren't 30 years ago. Only 32 of the 66 were in the top division at the time of the OU/UGA Supreme Court ruling, only 4 from the CUSA or Sun Belt.

So a lot of the Gs are tagalongs to something others built. They didn't create the value and don't provide the value of the CFP.

Do you really hate when a school puts in 50 million in facilities and commits to move up to FBS? Does that really bring down the sport?

Why is this such a bad thing when NAIA level schools are moving up to D1 to get their hands on NCAA tournament money? For hardly any investment at all.

I hate when they do it for ego on the back of students and taxpayers. I also don't like how all these new schools are diluting the talent pool for the G schools who were there before. The gap seems to be bigger than ever.

Does Ohio "deserve" 6 G schools and Georgia none based on the populations and politics of 100 years ago?

KSU and Georgia St are mostly commuter schools with little history of student support as fans and no hope of getting local support in the shadow of Georgia and Georgia Tech in Atlanta.

(08-30-2025 10:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 12:46 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 12:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 10:41 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  And the P4, except for UCF, have been in the top division since at least the 1950s. All but a few have been in power conferences or considered major independents the whole time. 21 of the 66 Gs either were FCS or didn't even play football when their seniors were born. 25 weren't in the top division when the BCS started and 29 weren't 30 years ago. Only 32 of the 66 were in the top division at the time of the OU/UGA Supreme Court ruling, only 4 from the CUSA or Sun Belt.

So a lot of the Gs are tagalongs to something others built. They didn't create the value and don't provide the value of the CFP.

Do you really hate when a school puts in 50 million in facilities and commits to move up to FBS? Does that really bring down the sport?

Why is this such a bad thing when NAIA level schools are moving up to D1 to get their hands on NCAA tournament money? For hardly any investment at all.

I hate when they do it for ego on the back of students and taxpayers. I also don't like how all these new schools are diluting the talent pool for the G schools who were there before. The gap seems to be bigger than ever.

Does Ohio "deserve" 6 G schools and Georgia none based on the populations and politics of 100 years ago?

KSU and Georgia St are mostly commuter schools with little history of student support as fans and no hope of getting local support in the shadow of Georgia and Georgia Tech in Atlanta.

And the MAC schools who regularly get beaten by them in attendance? If they agree to fund a program, let 'em play.

If the G6 started their own playoff it would basically turn us into the FCS. We'd be luck if any of the 6 conferences made over 1 mill per school a yr. Look how little FCS is on tv now. A few games here and there, some of the playoffs. The UAC, MVC, Big Sky would probably join our super FCS division.

I know none of us will ever win the playoff but hey, an upset would be pretty big, like a 16 seed winning or a VCU, Loyola, George Mason, Butler final four type feeling.

They could still have an NIT type playoff with the rest of the G6 top 12 or 16 minus the 1 that gets the AQ to the real playoffs. This way we'd have the best of both.

(08-30-2025 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  And the P4, except for UCF, have been in the top division since at least the 1950s. All but a few have been in power conferences or considered major independents the whole time. 21 of the 66 Gs either were FCS or didn't even play football when their seniors were born. 25 weren't in the top division when the BCS started and 29 weren't 30 years ago. Only 32 of the 66 were in the top division at the time of the OU/UGA Supreme Court ruling, only 4 from the CUSA or Sun Belt.

So a lot of the Gs are tagalongs to something others built. They didn't create the value and don't provide the value of the CFP.

And the P2 and M2 conference are eliminating or trying to eliminate some out of something they built. Army, Navy and the Ivy are the ones who build the sport with a few other like Lafayette, VMI, Washington and Lee, Bates, Tufts and others. Many of the P2/M2 tagalongs are the ones making money off of something others built

(08-30-2025 08:04 PM)celldweller7 Wrote:  I think the G6 unifying their media rights is a great idea. I don't think it needs to have anything to do with breaking away, but creating a unified voice.

It means the #1 partner will have access to the actual best G6 games every week. It will also mean the conferences aren't battling a content game against each other. They could have more leverage against midweek games being bumped to streaming. It would give them some leverage over broadcasters that need content, rather than letting them pit the conferences against each other.

It could also encourage less internal cannibalization, which I'm guessing university presidents see as rather fruitless. All of this drama for $2 or $4 million more or less probably takes up more of their time than the dollar value is worth.

It also makes sense because in essence they've been regulated to playing for one auto-bid.

* Think monetizing play-in games.

(08-30-2025 08:04 PM)celldweller7 Wrote:  I think the G6 unifying their media rights is a great idea. I don't think it needs to have anything to do with breaking away, but creating a unified voice.

It means the #1 partner will have access to the actual best G6 games every week. It will also mean the conferences aren't battling a content game against each other. They could have more leverage against midweek games being bumped to streaming. It would give them some leverage over broadcasters that need content, rather than letting them pit the conferences against each other.

It could also encourage less internal cannibalization, which I'm guessing university presidents see as rather fruitless. All of this drama for $2 or $4 million more or less probably takes up more of their time than the dollar value is worth.

An important thing to remember in conference realignment is that while it is dominated by the financial element that is objective, there is also always a psychological element that is subjective. Remember that academia is a unique industry - this is an industry at the top level doesn’t really compete on objective price, but rather pure perceptions of their prestige and image. It would be crazy in the auto industry if the same-sized Aston Martin, Lexus, and Kia all were the same price… but the equivalent happens all of the time with respect to college tuition. Heck - a new Aston Martin (a Harvard degree) could often be cheaper to the end consumer than a used Yugo (a third tier local degree). As a result, image is *everything* in academia. That image of prestige and branding is their currency more than money itself.

So, when we see this proposals that the entire system will make more money if everyone just aggregates together - whether it’s this G6 proposal or the private equity-led proposals for 72 or so power schools to all aggregate together - that belies that image is still the ultimate currency in academia and getting an edge in status is the entire ballgame. That’s why the Big Ten and SEC keep separating more and more at the top level (even though in theory, the entire system might make more money if all 4 power conferences joined together) and why I’m betting the Pac-12 and AAC are taking any unified G6 proposal and throwing it into the trash. Just look at the composition of the G6 itself - even beyond Washington State and Oregon State trying to cling onto whatever legacy power status that they once had, Boise State and San Diego State absolutely wanted to get away from the rest of the MWC for image purposes just as badly regardless of the money.

That is why these types of proposals never work. Money in academia is valuable only to the extent that it enables a school to rise in status compared to its peers. If everyone else is getting the same money, then it’s not a differentiator and loses value.

(08-30-2025 10:56 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 10:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 12:46 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 12:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 10:41 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  Do you really hate when a school puts in 50 million in facilities and commits to move up to FBS? Does that really bring down the sport?

Why is this such a bad thing when NAIA level schools are moving up to D1 to get their hands on NCAA tournament money? For hardly any investment at all.

I hate when they do it for ego on the back of students and taxpayers. I also don't like how all these new schools are diluting the talent pool for the G schools who were there before. The gap seems to be bigger than ever.

Does Ohio "deserve" 6 G schools and Georgia none based on the populations and politics of 100 years ago?

KSU and Georgia St are mostly commuter schools with little history of student support as fans and no hope of getting local support in the shadow of Georgia and Georgia Tech in Atlanta.

And the MAC schools who regularly get beaten by them in attendance? If they agree to fund a program, let 'em play.

Not many get beat by Georgia State and Kennesaw State in attendance. I was at that KSU/Liberty midweek game last year. Their stadium seats 8500 and while it was officially a sellout, there weren't 2500 people there and a good number were players and band members and stadium staff.

Eastern Michigan and Akron really should not be FBS. They've got the same issues. And they don't have as many students as they used to.

And who is funding the program? Its the state and students who didn't vote on the student fee increases (the ones who did are gone).

Football is a really expensive sport. KSU being Division I in basketball, baseball, etc. is different than being FBS in football. And all these new additions dilute the talent of those who were already there. ECU and USM used to be a lot more competitive with SEC/ACC schools when there were 20 less southern G schools in FBS.

(08-31-2025 07:43 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  And the P4, except for UCF, have been in the top division since at least the 1950s. All but a few have been in power conferences or considered major independents the whole time. 21 of the 66 Gs either were FCS or didn't even play football when their seniors were born. 25 weren't in the top division when the BCS started and 29 weren't 30 years ago. Only 32 of the 66 were in the top division at the time of the OU/UGA Supreme Court ruling, only 4 from the CUSA or Sun Belt.

So a lot of the Gs are tagalongs to something others built. They didn't create the value and don't provide the value of the CFP.

And the P2 and M2 conference are eliminating or trying to eliminate some out of something they built. Army, Navy and the Ivy are the ones who build the sport with a few other like Lafayette, VMI, Washington and Lee, Bates, Tufts and others. Many of the P2/M2 tagalongs are the ones making money off of something others built

The pros killed college football in the northeast. Yale, Harvard and Penn could probably be competitive if they wanted. They have the resources. But they would never get the attendance they used to have when they filled the Yale Bowl and Franklin Field. But they also decided they didn't want to make the academic comprises being in the top level required. Look at the top academic schools in FBS, Rice, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford. Only Stanford has had more than a special year or two. And Stanford will have bad decades to go with their good ones.

The answer is easy. If the P4 creates their own league, then the G6 should form their own G6 Basketball Tournament and let's see how popular the NCAA tournament is in a few years. I believe that the reason for the popularity of the NCAA basketball tournament is the possibility of Cinderella. Take that away and it is just another challenge of teams from the P4. If they are going to blow up things let's go all the way!

(08-31-2025 11:54 AM)PirateHawk Wrote:  The answer is easy. If the P4 creates their own league, then the G6 should form their own G6 Basketball Tournament and let's see how popular the NCAA tournament is in a few years. I believe that the reason for the popularity of the NCAA basketball tournament is the possibility of Cinderella. Take that away and it is just another challenge of teams from the P4. If they are going to blow up things let's go all the way!

I think that element is way overrated. P4 and BE keep the whole pot in that scenario. Now the gambling brackets are important.

(08-31-2025 05:42 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  If the G6 started their own playoff it would basically turn us into the FCS. We'd be luck if any of the 6 conferences made over 1 mill per school a yr. Look how little FCS is on tv now. A few games here and there, some of the playoffs. The UAC, MVC, Big Sky would probably join our super FCS division.

I know none of us will ever win the playoff but hey, an upset would be pretty big, like a 16 seed winning or a VCU, Loyola, George Mason, Butler final four type feeling.

They could still have an NIT type playoff with the rest of the G6 top 12 or 16 minus the 1 that gets the AQ to the real playoffs. This way we'd have the best of both.

That makes the most sense to me. Furthermore, it makes even more sense to get existing bowls to play along with that model---so the support system and network "buy in" is already in place. The "NIT" G6 model for the G-6 champs not in the CFP seems like a good way to keep some of the other non-CFP bowls more relevant in the era of the expanded 12-16 team playoff. Maybe do the first round at home stadiums, and the later rounds in the bowls. The other option that I think would draw A LOT of attention from the casual college football fan would be a two-to-four team playoff among the G6 to decide who gets the G6 CFP playoff slot. This by far would be the best way to draw viewers (I think it would attract far more casual fans than the NIT concept). The problem I have with this G6 playoff for the CFP slot concept is it makes the road to being competitive in the actual playoff even more grueling and difficult for the eventual G6 playoff representative as they would have to play at least one to two more games than every other participant.

(08-31-2025 11:54 AM)PirateHawk Wrote:  The answer is easy. If the P4 creates their own league, then the G6 should form their own G6 Basketball Tournament and let's see how popular the NCAA tournament is in a few years. I believe that the reason for the popularity of the NCAA basketball tournament is the possibility of Cinderella. Take that away and it is just another challenge of teams from the P4. If they are going to blow up things let's go all the way!

What might be interesting is for each to do their own tournaments---but have the G6 tournament start before the P4. Set it up, so the winner of the G6 tournament dumps into the P4 bracket at say the elite 8. If the tournaments are going to split---that might be a way to keep everyone engaged and interested in both---while largely keeping the financial aspects of the deals separate.

(08-31-2025 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2025 05:42 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  If the G6 started their own playoff it would basically turn us into the FCS. We'd be luck if any of the 6 conferences made over 1 mill per school a yr. Look how little FCS is on tv now. A few games here and there, some of the playoffs. The UAC, MVC, Big Sky would probably join our super FCS division.

I know none of us will ever win the playoff but hey, an upset would be pretty big, like a 16 seed winning or a VCU, Loyola, George Mason, Butler final four type feeling.

They could still have an NIT type playoff with the rest of the G6 top 12 or 16 minus the 1 that gets the AQ to the real playoffs. This way we'd have the best of both.

That makes the most sense to me. Furthermore, it makes even more sense to get existing bowls to play along with that model---so the support system and network "buy in" is already in place. The "NIT" G6 model for the G-6 champs not in the CFP seems like a good way to keep some of the other non-CFP bowls more relevant in the era of the expanded 12-16 team playoff. Maybe do the first round at home stadiums, and the later rounds in the bowls. The other option that I think would draw A LOT of attention from the casual college football fan would be a two-to-four team playoff among the G6 to decide who gets the G6 CFP playoff slot. This by far would be the best way to draw viewers (I think it would attract far more casual fans than the NIT concept). The problem I have with this G6 playoff for the CFP slot concept is it makes the road to being competitive in the actual playoff even more grueling and difficult for the eventual G6 playoff representative as they would have to play at least one to two more games than every other participant.

Well if they go to a 5+11 model, the Gs should push for a 6+11. That one game the first weekend will usually be a G play-in game.

As a Memphis fan, I want no part of any G league playoff, banding together, hoops tournament, etc. That would almost certainly be a disaster for Tiger sports.

Now, as a Middle Tennessee State fan (who is still baffled by our losing so badly to Austin Peay yesterday), I can see some benefit of such a move to Blue Raider athletics.

And that's the thing: There are some Group conference members (Oregon State, Washington State, Temple, Memphis, UConn, Tulane, San Diego State, USF, etc.) that 1. previously were members of high-profile conferences and/or 2. offer the resources and solid level of national notoriety to participate in one of the two M2 leagues (or some future variation thereof). The schools I list will keep trying to shed the G stigma. Being more like (fill in the blank) a Sun Belt, MAC or C-USA member and less like a Big 12 or ACC member is simply not appealing to such schools.

In contrast, a school like Middle Tennessee State is simply happy to be a member of one of the 10 all-sports FBS leagues.

(08-31-2025 04:06 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  As a Memphis fan, I want no part of any G league playoff, banding together, hoops tournament, etc. That would almost certainly be a disaster for Tiger sports.

Now, as a Middle Tennessee State fan (who is still baffled by our losing so badly to Austin Peay yesterday), I can see some benefit of such a move to Blue Raider athletics.

And that's the thing: There are some Group conference members (Oregon State, Washington State, Temple, Memphis, UConn, Tulane, San Diego State, USF, etc.) that 1. previously were members of high-profile conferences and/or 2. offer the resources and solid level of national notoriety to participate in one of the two M2 leagues (or some future variation thereof). The schools I list will keep trying to shed the G stigma. Being more like (fill in the blank) a Sun Belt, MAC or C-USA member and less like a Big 12 or ACC member is simply not appealing to such schools.

In contrast, a school like Middle Tennessee State is simply happy to be a member of one of the 10 all-sports FBS leagues.

Right. The CFA TV alliance was 63-66 schools. When you add the Big 10/Pac 10 TV alliance of the 80s, that gives you 83-86 schools. So that includes 14-17 schools not current P4 or previous P5 (OSU/WSU + 68 P4 less UCF=69). The MAC and Big West were not part of the CFA.

(08-31-2025 09:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 08:04 PM)celldweller7 Wrote:  I think the G6 unifying their media rights is a great idea. I don't think it needs to have anything to do with breaking away, but creating a unified voice.

It means the #1 partner will have access to the actual best G6 games every week. It will also mean the conferences aren't battling a content game against each other. They could have more leverage against midweek games being bumped to streaming. It would give them some leverage over broadcasters that need content, rather than letting them pit the conferences against each other.

It could also encourage less internal cannibalization, which I'm guessing university presidents see as rather fruitless. All of this drama for $2 or $4 million more or less probably takes up more of their time than the dollar value is worth.

An important thing to remember in conference realignment is that while it is dominated by the financial element that is objective, there is also always a psychological element that is subjective. Remember that academia is a unique industry - this is an industry at the top level doesn’t really compete on objective price, but rather pure perceptions of their prestige and image. It would be crazy in the auto industry if the same-sized Aston Martin, Lexus, and Kia all were the same price… but the equivalent happens all of the time with respect to college tuition. Heck - a new Aston Martin (a Harvard degree) could often be cheaper to the end consumer than a used Yugo (a third tier local degree). As a result, image is *everything* in academia. That image of prestige and branding is their currency more than money itself.

So, when we see this proposals that the entire system will make more money if everyone just aggregates together - whether it’s this G6 proposal or the private equity-led proposals for 72 or so power schools to all aggregate together - that belies that image is still the ultimate currency in academia and getting an edge in status is the entire ballgame. That’s why the Big Ten and SEC keep separating more and more at the top level (even though in theory, the entire system might make more money if all 4 power conferences joined together) and why I’m betting the Pac-12 and AAC are taking any unified G6 proposal and throwing it into the trash. Just look at the composition of the G6 itself - even beyond Washington State and Oregon State trying to cling onto whatever legacy power status that they once had, Boise State and San Diego State absolutely wanted to get away from the rest of the MWC for image purposes just as badly regardless of the money.

That is why these types of proposals never work. Money in academia is valuable only to the extent that it enables a school to rise in status compared to its peers. If everyone else is getting the same money, then it’s not a differentiator and loses value.

This is all very well said. Colleges and universities have an insatiable demand for more money, which makes it look to some outsiders as if money is all that matters to them. But as you say, prestige and status are the true coin-of-the-realm, and money is desired as a means to the end of boosting one's status and prestige. It is the quest to inch that much closer to Harvard and Princeton, the ultimate yardsticks, that drives the insatiable demand for money.

So I agree, efforts to clump a bunch of schools together- whether it be among all the Gs, or among the Ps - is destined to fail, as the driving force of a school is to separate and distinguish itself from its peers, not get clumped together with them, even if clumping is more economically rational, etc.

And it applies at all levels. For example, to just about anyone not living in the upper half of Louisiana, Louisiana Tech's efforts of the past 25 years to avoid being in the same conference with Louisiana-Monroe looks like the height of petty absurdity. They have played in conferences hither and yon to avoid them, completely irrational on the surface. But IMO they decided that not being viewed as a "peer" of ULM was critical to their sense of pride and status, even at that level, and so have taken those steps. They seemingly have abandoned that only due to the dire situation in CUSA, established members are leaving and recent FCS are joining.