Reforming College Football

[GP1]

I have thought about posting this for a while and the crippling two inches of snow we have in the Charlotte area today has given me the time to post it.I was reading Drudge this morning and there was a story about the government forcing reforms on college football. The best way to prevent them from doing that is by reforming themselves. The Great GP1 is not of the opinion that dividing money among all schools is realistic or will accomplish much. Instead, the NCAA needs to take the following steps and structure.1. Identify the top 40 teams of the past 40 years. Joining this top 40 ranking would be voluntary and your school could option to leave it at any time after the season. Another team would be selected to take that teams place.2. Separate those teams into a league of their own consisting of four divisions.3. The season will consist of 12 games. 9 divisional games and three non-divisional games.4. Non-divisional games will take place against teams that finished in the same order from the previous year. For example, if you finish third, you play the other third place teams from the year before. The better you do, the more difficult schedule you have the following year.5. At the end of the season, a four team playoff will take place between the first place finishers of each division. A system of tie-breakers similar to the NFL will need to be established. A playoff match up system will also have to be established.6. There will be a two week layoff between the final game and the first playoff game.7. The championship game will take place on New Years Day Night.8. Expand spring practice to 30 sessions for these teams.9. Any team making the playoffs will only have 20 spring practice sessions.10. Expanded practice time for these teams will be required during the season.11. Scholarship players will be paid $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year) for their service in addition to their scholarships.12. Bonuses will be paid to player and coaches for making the playoffs. Pick a number.13. Each team will have 2 pre-season games against teams they are not scheduled to play in the regular season.14. Non-divisional games would be the first three games of the season.15. After six games, each team will have a week off.I took a look at the teams in college football and the following is what I came up with. The first 30 teams were pretty obvious. The final 10 took some thought and could be debated. My four divisions would be as follows (I tried to keep it geographically close):Division 1Boston College (debatable)PittWVUPenn StateVA TechtOSUMichiganNotre DameMichigan StateVirginia (debatable)Division 2ClemsonFL StateMiami FlFloridaNorth Carolina (debatable)GeorgiaGA Tech (debatable)TennesseeLSUAlabamaDivision 3WisconsinIllinois (debatable)PurdueIowa (debatable)Missouri (debatable)Arkansas (debatable)NebraskaOklahomaAuburnTCU (debatable)Division 4TexasTX A&MBYUUtah (debatable)CalUSCArizonaOregonWashingtonBoise St. (debatable)IMHO, those are four very strong divisions where every game would be tough and every game would matter. No more BCS teams beating up on non-BCS schools or worse yet, I-AA teams.I also thing this would be good for the remainder of college football. They could do something similar witht he remaining teams and really give those teams something to play for each week. Another division in college football wouldn't hurt it.

[zip37]

I am opposed to Congress getting involved in most everything,[ the first casuality is freedom], however, the NCAA, like other non-responsive institutions hasnot policed their own ship because the big $ bowl games have the NCAA by the you-know-whats. The 'great' GP1 has a pretty good idea. I'm of the opinion that there are 2 chances that anything will happen w/o congress sticking their nose [or other organ if you prefer] into the mess-- and slim has left the house.GP1 has obviously given this matter some thought and it makes sense so we can rule out the NCAA doing something like that, so Congrss will probaly do something to muck up the works worse-- then the NCAA will really squeel, but they will have brought it upon themselves.

[johnnyzip84]

OK, I'll take a shot at this. I see some merit in these proposals. While the idea of a super conference might be the best approach to address some issues such as athletic department deficits, perceived exploitation of student athletes and national championship controversy, I think there are some concerns with this approach.I believe the quality of college football programs has always been spread out along more of a continuum than the "haves vs. have-nots" scenario often depicted. There just happens to be a very large spread between, for instance, the SEC and the MAC since they more or less represent different ends of the spectrum within the whole of the FBS. I think this makes the selection of an initial top 40 very difficult. Being left out (and I can think of quite a few deserving teams you left off your list.....Oregon St, Oklahoma St, Ole Miss, Texas Tech, Arizona St, etc.) of the initial selection could be critical to a program.NOW IF the plan were to include a "promotion/relegation" system similar to European soccer, this might mitigate the damage done to deserving teams having not mad the first "cut". And it would also reward "play on the field" to provide a vehicle for the Boise St's of the world to make their ascent up the ranks. Of course, this provision would only work with GP's formation of another one (or two) more divisions. Maybe the top 4 in the lower division could get promoted and the bottom 4 in the super division be relegated at the end of every season. If you throw this in, I might be willing back such an idea.We're both ignoring a powerful lobbying group however......the Bowls. I'd be willing to let them die or become part of the D1/D2/D3/D4/D5/D6 playoff structure. But will they?

[ZachTheZip]

Sounds like a system with all the problems of the BCS but none of the benefits.

[GP1]

OK, I'll take a shot at this. I see some merit in these proposals. While the idea of a super conference might be the best approach to address some issues such as athletic department deficits, perceived exploitation of student athletes and national championship controversy, I think there are some concerns with this approach.I believe the quality of college football programs has always been spread out along more of a continuum than the "haves vs. have-nots" scenario often depicted. There just happens to be a very large spread between, for instance, the SEC and the MAC since they more or less represent different ends of the spectrum within the whole of the FBS. I think this makes the selection of an initial top 40 very difficult. Being left out (and I can think of quite a few deserving teams you left off your list.....Oregon St, Oklahoma St, Ole Miss, Texas Tech, Arizona St, etc.) of the initial selection could be critical to a program.NOW IF the plan were to include a "promotion/relegation" system similar to European soccer, this might mitigate the damage done to deserving teams having not mad the first "cut". And it would also reward "play on the field" to provide a vehicle for the Boise St's of the world to make their ascent up the ranks. Of course, this provision would only work with GP's formation of another one (or two) more divisions. Maybe the top 4 in the lower division could get promoted and the bottom 4 in the super division be relegated at the end of every season. If you throw this in, I might be willing back such an idea.We're both ignoring a powerful lobbying group however......the Bowls. I'd be willing to let them die or become part of the D1/D2/D3/D4/D5/D6 playoff structure. But will they?

You're right. The decision of who and who does not make the cut is difficult. Some schools would throw a fit if they didn't make it. Real reform is not easy. Many of the debatable could easily be replaced by one of the excluded teams you mention above.Keep in mind, being included in this group would be voluntary and a team could leave whenever possible. Maybe bumping the divisions up to 12 teams and having a 14 game schedule could be an answer.I'm not sure what to do about the bowls. I love bowl season. After what I saw on TV this year, it appears as if people are losing interest in lower level bowls. Crowds seemed small. The bowls could die on the vine.After a couple of years, schools would adjust to their position and this system would settle itself out.

[GP1]

Sounds like a system with all the problems of the BCS but none of the benefits.

I'm not sure what you mean. It is completely the opposite of the BCS. No computers. No polls. Meaningful regular season. Playoffs. My method has mechanisms for keeping teams from becoming dominant in spring practice reduction and more difficult schedules for better teams.The BCS is killing non-BCS conferences. Most non-BCS conferences are in worse condition now than before the BCS. It is almost impossible to make around 130 teams equal. It is time for college football to live in the reality of what it has created for itself. If the NCAA wants college football the way it is now with big name teams playing on TV and in big games, let's make it bigger. Fans would embrace this like there was no tomorrow.

[zippyrifle32]

The reason why schools choose to be affiliated with and conform to the NCAA has everything to do with the money going back into the programs. There are other "lesser" leagues out there that schools could join instead of the NCAA, but choose not to. With the GP1 idea, why would the non-top 40 schools want to be a part of it when they don't get a piece of the pie? I also strongly disagree with paying the players in addition to scholarship money. For an all or nothing scholarship sport (like football) the scholarship athletes already get a living stipend on top of tuition and books. Some spend their money on food and rent and others on xbox 360's and plasma tv's. If you were to pay one sport's athletes for performance (bonuses) then what about all the other sports and Title IX? While I don't like the government putting their hands into the NCAA's business, I strongly disagree with GP1's proposed system. I'm not too familiar with the D-II playoff format, but why can't D-I copy that?

[GP1]

With the GP1 idea, why would the non-top 40 schools want to be a part of it when they don't get a piece of the pie? I also strongly disagree with paying the players in addition to scholarship money. I'm not too familiar with the D-II playoff format, but why can't D-I copy that?

The non-top 40 teams wouldn't get a piece of the pie. They don't deserve it. My idea is structured to allow those teams in the league to benefit from doing the right thing and building successful programs over the past 40 years. 40 years is enough. If a school can't get it straight in 40 years, they don't deserve to be rewarded by being part of the top 40.These schools would be raking in cash like mad in my system. Paying the players a grand a month would be peanuts compared to the amount of money the schools would rake in. The players should get part of that money. After all, they are the factory workers in this system. My system would only cost a school $1,020,000 per year. They could easily make that up in increased ticket prices. Everyone should drive down to tOSU and look at their athletic facilities. They waste more money than that every year doing things like watering the astroturf fieldhockey field. Yes, I went to a baseball game to watch a friends nephew playing at UToledo play tOSU. Over the center field fence on a rainy spring day, the sprinklers were watering the astroturf fieldhockey field.The current playoff system for the lower divisions has created a situation where it has become the same teams year in and year out in the playoffs and finals. There is no institutional method for leveling the playing field for the schools. My idea reduces spring practices and sets up a schedule that levels the playing field for the non-playoff teams. If D-1A adopts a playoff system like the other levels, we will see the same teams in the playoffs year in and year out. It will destroy college football. It hasn't destroyed the othe levels because the amount of people who actually care about what goes on at lower level conferences is very small.

[jaycevs]

I disagree with a 40 team system, that's not college football. I already have the NFL to watch every Sunday, and the fact that FBS college football is very different is what gives it appeal in general. With 40 teams, you would easily see two 8-4 teams playing for a national title. You also lose one of the things a lot of people love about it, that being the chance that a big school gets knocked off by a MAC or Sun Belt school, or other non BCS team. There are things that need fixed in college, why don't we start smaller instead of changing everything that a lot of people love about the game. 1. Salary cap the coaching staffs or penalize (luxury tax) that university if they choose to ignore.2. Stop the insane boosters, plain and simple, limit the total amounts a school can receive, and beyond that the NCAA should take it.3. Make teams play the same number of games, and quit letting all the powers play 8 home games while a MAC school gets 5. Once again, penalize this if they choose to ignore. 5. Don't let a FBS play a FCS, ever.6. Have the NCAA hire and manage all the officials, can you think of the NFL with an AFC North Officiating crew that is paid by them? 7. Have all your big TV money split up, the NCAA should control those contracts and deals, things like the SEC/Big 10 deals only make the problems with competition worse. *These penalties would either be in scholarships or go into the profit sharing plan. However if a school is actively not trying to compete (like the KC Royals), don't let them collect money. One of the things that makes the NFL great is that it is ONE League, and they all play by the same rules. Colleges should be no different in that

[GP1]

1. Salary cap the coaching staffs or penalize (luxury tax) that university if they choose to ignore.2. Stop the insane boosters, plain and simple, limit the total amounts a school can receive, and beyond that the NCAA should take it.3. Make teams play the same number of games, and quit letting all the powers play 8 home games while a MAC school gets 5. Once again, penalize this if they choose to ignore. 5. Don't let a FBS play a FCS, ever.6. Have the NCAA hire and manage all the officials, can you think of the NFL with an AFC North Officiating crew that is paid by them? 7. Have all your big TV money split up, the NCAA should control those contracts and deals, things like the SEC/Big 10 deals only make the problems with competition worse.

1. Why punish coaches for success or punish schools for their ability to pay coaches?2. Why punish schools for spending decades developing alumni and booster relations? It is not the NCAA's money. It is the money of the University and the NCAA does not run our universities.3. If a team can schedule 8 home games, why should they be punished? My method would have closely equal number of home and away games.5. I agree. My method will eliminate that.6. Officials are the least of the problems in the NCAA.7. Why punish the successful schools by taking away their money and giving it to teams and conferences that can't find their ass with both hands. They my as well flush the money down the toilet.The NCAA should not be in the business of punishing success. The NCAA should be in the business of creating better competition. My method creates more competition and quite frankly, more exciting games. There is no way the NCAA can make 130 odd teams equal. If there is inequity, they need to separate the inequity and allow more equal team to compete against one another.

[zippyrifle32]

How does your proposal create more competition when it is limiting a league/division/whatever to a rigid list of only 40 teams? While there is a ton of money in college athletics and that is the main reason the government wants to step in, that is not the only reason for collegiate sports. Saying paying players $1000 is peanuts doesn't address the Title IX issue or how it would affect other teams. Title IX isn't an NCAA thing either, it's a US law affecting schools accepting federal funding.

[zippyrifle32]

1. Why punish coaches for success or punish schools for their ability to pay coaches?...The NCAA should not be in the business of punishing success. The NCAA should be in the business of creating better competition. My method creates more competition and quite frankly, more exciting games. There is no way the NCAA can make 130 odd teams equal. If there is inequity, they need to separate the inequity and allow more equal team to compete against one another.

Is it really punishing success or is it leveling out the playing field?

[skip-zip]

My answer is very simple....The method of reform I want....is whatever benefits Akron the most.

[jaycevs]

I don't think that's punishment, in general you can see college football getting more like MLB when it comes to that money gap with TV contracts and merchandise. Does the level playing field work in the NFL, or do people prefer baseball, where championships are bought by big markets who can spend 300 million on payroll. I just think if the NCAA actually managed FBS, and leveled the playing field by making people play by the same rules, those big schools could still spend their money if they wanted, but luxury would get kicked down to lower programs to help them become truly competitive. What would be better than to see more teams in position to go into a potential tournament with a real chance to pull something off? Would this benefit UA, sure, that's why I would want to see it.

[UADavid]

My answer is very simple....The method of reform I want....is whatever benefits Akron the most.

What benefits Akron wouldn't be a super conference. Where would the money come from for the other 80-90 teams that don't make the cut? TV? Advertising? Sponsors? Big game payouts? No-no-no-no. It puts all the money in a much smaller basket and turns the super teams into professional teams with paid students. In the gp1 scenario, there would be no promotion/relegation because no team could afford to do so. How would scheduling be accomplished? Do you inherit their schedule and they inherit yours? It's been brought up several times and it's still not a good idea or an idea that would benefit Akron or any other non super conference team. It rewards schools that already have the most. No more Boise Sts., no TCU's, no Appalachian Sts., I could do without that in college athletics. For every team not part of the chosen few, it would be like being the Pittsburgh Pirates and knowing you're going nowhere.

[Dave in Green]

...... 11. Scholarship players will be paid $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year) for their service in addition to their scholarships.12. Bonuses will be paid to player and coaches for making the playoffs. Pick a number. .....

First thing that needs to be done is to analyze the definition of professional and amateur. Up until now, the generally accepted definition is that professionals earn their living by being paid to do something and amateurs just do it for fun.Pee wee football, high school football and college football have generally been considered amateur, and the NFL professional. But it's true that many college players get monetary reimbursement through athletic scholarships, and many colleges make money on football. So the lines have already been blurred.The next question is how far to blur the lines? Can we legally get the money down into high schools? How about pee wee football? How about paying parents who have the genes to potentially produce good football players?Where does it all end?Wherever some fast-talking promoter and enough true believers want it to end.

[GP1]

1. Why punish coaches for success or punish schools for their ability to pay coaches?...The NCAA should not be in the business of punishing success. The NCAA should be in the business of creating better competition. My method creates more competition and quite frankly, more exciting games. There is no way the NCAA can make 130 odd teams equal. If there is inequity, they need to separate the inequity and allow more equal team to compete against one another.

Is it really punishing success or is it leveling out the playing field?

Good question. Why does it have to be either/or? It is both punishing and leveling. I don't like to punish others for their success. There is a level playing field everywhere except money. All schools have the same number of scholarship players, spring practices, games per year, most are on TV at some point.

[GP1]

My answer is very simple....The method of reform I want....is whatever benefits Akron the most.

What benefits Akron wouldn't be a super conference. Where would the money come from for the other 80-90 teams that don't make the cut? TV? Advertising? Sponsors? Big game payouts? No-no-no-no. It puts all the money in a much smaller basket and turns the super teams into professional teams with paid students. In the gp1 scenario, there would be no promotion/relegation because no team could afford to do so. How would scheduling be accomplished? Do you inherit their schedule and they inherit yours? It's been brought up several times and it's still not a good idea or an idea that would benefit Akron or any other non super conference team. It rewards schools that already have the most. No more Boise Sts., no TCU's, no Appalachian Sts., I could do without that in college athletics. For every team not part of the chosen few, it would be like being the Pittsburgh Pirates and knowing you're going nowhere.

I actually think this would be a better scenario for the teams that don't make the 40. If those schools were any good over the past 40 years, they would have made the cut. They can now go off into their own league where they don't have to whore themselves out every year, like UofA does. It creates more competition in the lower levels and higher level.In terms of the money, we aren't making any money now. What would the difference be?Most of the top 40 are professional teams anyhow. They are in the business of generating millions for their schools every year. Coaches make millions a year. My scenario creates a situation where the players are paid $1,000 per month up front in lieu of having go go pick up an envelop full of $100 bills in it every month.Please see my original post for scheduling method.

[GP1]

...... 11. Scholarship players will be paid $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year) for their service in addition to their scholarships.12. Bonuses will be paid to player and coaches for making the playoffs. Pick a number. .....

First thing that needs to be done is to analyze the definition of professional and amateur. Up until now, the generally accepted definition is that professionals earn their living by being paid to do something and amateurs just do it for fun.Pee wee football, high school football and college football have generally been considered amateur, and the NFL professional. But it's true that many college players get monetary reimbursement through athletic scholarships, and many colleges make money on football. So the lines have already been blurred.The next question is how far to blur the lines? Can we legally get the money down into high schools? How about pee wee football? How about paying parents who have the genes to potentially produce good football players?Where does it all end?Wherever some fast-talking promoter and enough true believers want it to end.

Good questions.I believe that an adult should be able to earn some income for their services. College football players are providing a service to their schools that in the top 40 schools earns those schools millions each year. It isn't like high school where a small number of people go to games, buy a five or ten dollar ticket, eat a hotdog, watch a game and go home....very little money is spent. When someone goes to a big time college football game, tickets are much more expensive, donations in the thousands of dollars have to be given for some seats, parking lots are full of thousands of cars that had to pay to park, merchandise is sold with the players numbers on them, etc.I find it almost immoral that college football players at the highest level don't get paid. We are talking about adults here, not children. I think people lose sight of that when they watch college football. The players are sometimes referred to as "kids". They aren't kids, they are grown men participating in an event that is making millions for someone else. The pressure is tremendous, especially from the coaches who are getting paid to coach.In reality, $12,000 a year is at the poverty level in the United States. Some college football players have children. While they can't support them on $12,000, it probably helps. Moralists shouting......."But GP1, if they can't afford kids, they shouldn't be having sex." Riiiiiiiight. How many of us were having sex in college? Many of us could have easily had a kid had some things gone differently. Moralist guy needs to stay away. If moralist guy had any real morality, he would see the inequity and demand the players get paid on some level beyond the scholarship.

[Hilltopper]

They are getting paid. They get a free four or five years of however many classes they care to take. Free room and board. Free books. Everybody else has to figure out a way to pay for the same thing.

[g-mann17]

...... 11. Scholarship players will be paid $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year) for their service in addition to their scholarships.12. Bonuses will be paid to player and coaches for making the playoffs. Pick a number. .....

First thing that needs to be done is to analyze the definition of professional and amateur. Up until now, the generally accepted definition is that professionals earn their living by being paid to do something and amateurs just do it for fun.Pee wee football, high school football and college football have generally been considered amateur, and the NFL professional. But it's true that many college players get monetary reimbursement through athletic scholarships, and many colleges make money on football. So the lines have already been blurred.The next question is how far to blur the lines? Can we legally get the money down into high schools? How about pee wee football? How about paying parents who have the genes to potentially produce good football players?Where does it all end?Wherever some fast-talking promoter and enough true believers want it to end.

Good questions.I believe that an adult should be able to earn some income for their services. College football players are providing a service to their schools that in the top 40 schools earns those schools millions each year. It isn't like high school where a small number of people go to games, buy a five or ten dollar ticket, eat a hotdog, watch a game and go home....very little money is spent. When someone goes to a big time college football game, tickets are much more expensive, donations in the thousands of dollars have to be given for some seats, parking lots are full of thousands of cars that had to pay to park, merchandise is sold with the players numbers on them, etc.I find it almost immoral that college football players at the highest level don't get paid. We are talking about adults here, not children. I think people lose sight of that when they watch college football. The players are sometimes referred to as "kids". They aren't kids, they are grown men participating in an event that is making millions for someone else. The pressure is tremendous, especially from the coaches who are getting paid to coach.In reality, $12,000 a year is at the poverty level in the United States. Some college football players have children. While they can't support them on $12,000, it probably helps. Moralists shouting......."But GP1, if they can't afford kids, they shouldn't be having sex." Riiiiiiiight. How many of us were having sex in college? Many of us could have easily had a kid had some things gone differently. Moralist guy needs to stay away. If moralist guy had any real morality, he would see the inequity and demand the players get paid on some level beyond the scholarship.

You really think they aren't getting paid? Really, you can look a person in the face and say that $40,000 worth of classes, $40,000 worth of rent, $20,000 worth of food, and $15,000 worth of clothes, books, computers and school supplies isn't payment for services rendered? At 5 years that is $23,000 a year, tax free, in fact at your "tax expense" (90% of Universities are public). I love how many people think that schools make "millions off these kids" a few schools make money (OSU, Texas, Florida) most don't. Most of those millions are pumped back into the program and other programs at the school. Even in your "top 40" most don't even get to do that. Most require students to pay a fee so that athletics exist. Even though those students never get to use any of that equipment or fields. So, what is the equivalent to 5 years of an entry level job, and coming out of the deal debt free, you think they deserve extra money. For what? Playing football? You realize that only 2.1% of the 10,200 scholarship players in FBS get a shot at the NFL, let alone a contract. But these guys are "professionals"?

[zippyrifle32]

They are getting paid. They get a free four or five years of however many classes they care to take. Free room and board. Free books. Everybody else has to figure out a way to pay for the same thing.

As an out of state student (like many football players), a five year education, books, room and board would put me at $100,000-120,000. If that fifth year was a year of graduate school then maybe slightly higher since grad school is more expensive. Hmmmm... and walking away with a degree and no student loans? I don't even know how to factor that in.

[UADavid]

I repeat that there would be no money for the remaining teams. You bemoan the "Whoring out" of the football team but these games are important to the program for a multitude of reasons not the least of which is revenue. Without these games the entire athletic department would be hurt. This action could actually cause a reduction in sports at UA. This is a bad idea for UA and for any non super conference team. You're attempting to turn the NCAA into another NFL. Every year we have upsets and that's what makes college athletics so interesting and exciting. Your plan rewards the largest schools at this time in history and ensures that no other school would ever escape the black hole that would be the remaining teams. Bad, bad idea.

My answer is very simple....The method of reform I want....is whatever benefits Akron the most.

What benefits Akron wouldn't be a super conference. Where would the money come from for the other 80-90 teams that don't make the cut? TV? Advertising? Sponsors? Big game payouts? No-no-no-no. It puts all the money in a much smaller basket and turns the super teams into professional teams with paid students. In the gp1 scenario, there would be no promotion/relegation because no team could afford to do so. How would scheduling be accomplished? Do you inherit their schedule and they inherit yours? It's been brought up several times and it's still not a good idea or an idea that would benefit Akron or any other non super conference team. It rewards schools that already have the most. No more Boise Sts., no TCU's, no Appalachian Sts., I could do without that in college athletics. For every team not part of the chosen few, it would be like being the Pittsburgh Pirates and knowing you're going nowhere.

I actually think this would be a better scenario for the teams that don't make the 40. If those schools were any good over the past 40 years, they would have made the cut. They can now go off into their own league where they don't have to whore themselves out every year, like UofA does. It creates more competition in the lower levels and higher level.In terms of the money, we aren't making any money now. What would the difference be?Most of the top 40 are professional teams anyhow. They are in the business of generating millions for their schools every year. Coaches make millions a year. My scenario creates a situation where the players are paid $1,000 per month up front in lieu of having go go pick up an envelop full of $100 bills in it every month.Please see my original post for scheduling method.

[Dave in Green]

..... Moralist guy needs to stay away. If moralist guy had any real morality, he would see the inequity and demand the players get paid on some level beyond the scholarship.

Pesky moralists. Always preaching about trying to maintain higher standards of right and wrong behavior. The answer is obviously to allow guns in locker rooms. That will scare the moralists away.

[GP1]

I repeat that there would be no money for the remaining teams. You bemoan the "Whoring out" of the football team but these games are important to the program for a multitude of reasons not the least of which is revenue. Without these games the entire athletic department would be hurt. This action could actually cause a reduction in sports at UA. This is a bad idea for UA and for any non super conference team. You're attempting to turn the NCAA into another NFL. Every year we have upsets and that's what makes college athletics so interesting and exciting. Your plan rewards the largest schools at this time in history and ensures that no other school would ever escape the black hole that would be the remaining teams. Bad, bad idea.

I really don't disagree with some of what you are saying.I repeat. There already is no money for the remaining teams. Most schools at our level function at a loss. UofA brings in less money than it spends for athletics. We actually have less than no money. We have so little money we have to be boosted by the tax payers of Ohio.We do have to whore ourselves out. That's the problem. It is something I find distasteful not just for UofA, but for all of college sports. It irks me that so many of the big schools are taking advantage of the little schools for glorified scrimmages. It irks me that those same schools force their fans to pay to watch that tripe.College football would become as competitive as the NFL week in and week out in my system. The high level of competition is what makes the NFL so good.My system rewards the best teams over the past 40 years, not recent history.The MAC has been in business since 1946. It is truely a black hole.I think a lot of you are missing the point about my post. My system is much more about increasing competition and not as much about money. I think the competition at the highest level would be great to watch. I also think that the competition at whatever level UofA fell into would be much better to watch as well. Every week UofA would have a winnable game and a meaningful game.