Sue ESPN to put a stop to the nonsense.

I know, I know, the easy answer is "ESPN," but Fox has a say in that if nothing else. So that can't be the only answer.

is too large. I'm even referring to teams in the power 5 conferences; for example, last spring Colorado lost their head coach (who had a losing record in his only year with the team, I believe) to Michigan State pretty much only because MSU (a middle of the road Big 10 team) was able to double his salary and double his assistants salary.

Now, look at that and then compare Alabama to just about anyone. In order for the game to survive at this point, either you need to make the middle teams better or you need to cut off the bottom 75% of teams or so and create a super league. I personally believe that they were on their way to doing that prior to covid and then things got messed up. Now with the name, image and likeness deals coming through, the gap will just continue to grow and teams and players alike will embrace the concept of "roster management" with transfers (coming in and leaving) becoming even more common and guys going to places where they can get the best deals.

It's pretty much over, IMO. And please keep in mind that this isn't something that I support and I personally think that a school like Notre Dame could have really made a difference in leading instead of monitoring the landscape. About 30 years ago, there was an opportunity when the TV contracts started exploding to really lock things in, figure out how to fairly promote the players and get them some above the table payments for NIL, set some groundwork for equity and fairness, and get rid of the wild west atmosphere and cash grab that started going on with schools jumping conferences, etc. Instead, we just sat back and basically half ass things with an "independent" schedule that pretty much consists of ACC games and directional schools stuffed in between games with Stanford, Sc, and Navy. It's garbage.

I think that the schools themselves will be the ones to drive the change, because they will start to realize that having so many non-competitive teams just means that they have to split "their" money with the deadbeat programs, and they'll resent it.

think they have good programs. Iowa and Wisconsin, for example, can schedule two guaranteed OOC wins and play 2-3 guaranteed wins in conference. If they can then go .500 in their 5 or 6 competitive games and occasionally upset one of the big boys, then they're winning 8-10 games every year and playing in bowl games. The fans are happy and will continue packing the stadium and turning on their TVs. My question is once there's a super league and Iowa and Wisconsin basically cap out at .500 ever year, are their fan bases going to slowly degrade? It won't be like the pros where bad teams get an infusion of excitement via draft picks.

Jack out here trying to see if you can in fact get just a little bit pregnant.

say, 48 teams, that the #48 team would likely be better than it is now because all the recruits that are currently divided up among 65 major conference and/or 130 FBS teams would now be condensed into 48 teams? Alabama isn't going to get better, but they will have a much tougher time winning 90% of the time like they do now.

In a nutshell, won't much more parity be the likely result? I tend to think that in the long run that's a net positive.

parity in regards to the final standings and who wins championships. There will be no draft or salary cap to promote parity. Like I said below, in the NFL Trevor Lawrence goes to the worst team. In college, Trevor Lawrence goes to the best team and keeps them as the best team.

never entered New Year's day being relevant to the national championship discussion, yet the numerous Wisconsin alumni I work with are quite proud, and in some cases even cocky, about their program because the current system leads them to believe they have an elite program. That aint happening in a 40-50 team super league.

I know the point of your post was to rip on Michigan, which is always a worthwhile endeavor. I just happen to work with a ton of Wiscy grads, so I couldn't let it pass.

And ultimately the sport.

It seems the sport was in a better place when you just played your schedule and let the AP decide who was the mythical national champion. It wasn't perfect, but it was interesting and it allowed tier 2 programs to sneak in a National Championship .

There was always a bit an arms competition , but that arms race exploded in the past decade--in large part with trying to keep up with the SEC. The salary structure/budgets from 2010 to 2021 aren't even close. For instance, OSU's coordinators were making 300k in 2010 vs 2+MM with a much larger coaching staff in 2021?

Correlation is not causation.

Plenty of the "little 8" teams made the Rose Bowl.

Iowa, Illinois , Wisconsin, Northwestern Michigan State all made it to the Rose Bowl in 80s and 90. They were national championship contenders for a for a brief moment. Such teams have less chance in this playoff system. That is not just correlation. They are not set up to compete with the heavy weights through a playoff

The 60s were even more balanced competitively.

Michigan was able to win a National championship too. Not likely to happen now.

Learn some history.

Who really gives a crap if there is an "undisputed" national champion? It made for more discussion and interest in the entire system. The bowls were more fun, New Years Day was more fun, the other bowls were more interesting. Hell, I don't even watch any bowl games anymore unless ND is playing. Give me the days when there was a split national champion. I have despised the BCS and playoff that added the final games to the mix.

* In the 20 years before the BCS started there were only 4 years when there was a so-called split national champion.

When TV coverage started to explode in the early 2000s, I thought it might be a really good thing for ND. I thought we were entering a world where due to almost infinite TV exposure the Ohio States of the world would become indistinguishable from the Iowas, which would make Notre Dame standout more as being a truly unique option for players. Instead, due to the NC focus, it's gone the other way. We have 3 super teams and then a big drop off to everyone else.

last 10 years, as you state, it started heating up in the late 90s and accelerated in the early 00's and is a train off the tracks now.

other than the additional money of the playoffs. Schools and conferences would have still sought as much money as possible. Coaches would still have sought higher salaries. Players would still be entitled to and look to maximize NIL.

What party wouldn't have done these things if there was an AP national champion rather than playoff? Schools wouldn't have tried to maximize TV deals? Assistant coaches wouldn't jump at million-dollar offers?

And stressed the primacy of academic mission and amateurism.

I was just wondering where it came from.

Which in turn caused the handful of elites to ramp up their operations and expenditures creating a lot of inequity.

Prior to BCS/playoffs, Alabama was never a measuring stick. You were mainly focused on your schedule , rival and conference bowl opponent . This National Championship or bust mentality wasn't as prevalent.

Saban just happened to arrive during the BCS/playoff era; he's demonstrated he would have been dominant in most any era.

And inequity has always existed. Big two and little eight ring any bells?

The ramp up of operations and especially expenditures is enabled by the the selling of television rights; the selling of year-round, 24-hour network subscriptions; ever escalating ticket prices; incremental, mandatory fees that are required to obtain the rights to purchase tickets, such as "contribution models" and "building funds"; and by boosters with deep pockets.

The arms race was not enabled by the playoffs, national championship, or BCS. The arms race is fueled by those gladly willing to part with their money. There's one born every minute.

for sports is really the driving force.

The playoff was instituted because there was money to be made, time slots to fill and networks in need of programming. The playoffs were a consequence of TV money and the forces at play today rather than a cause. Just another step down that road.

BCS and CFP were a continuation away from where the sport was, but I don't think it likely they would have been held off much longer even if delayed.

Of course, I don't know.

This is one reason why, for example, Nebraska holds way less sway than they did 30-40 years ago. Very few programs can sell out a bowl game the way Nebraska can. In the 80s and even the 90s that meant something. In today's world it's trivial compared to TV money, and Nebraska is only a middle of the road TV draw.

they have just been doing it for longer.

was legal. Those are KIND OF like football championships.

in the discussion a few times, even if likely undeserving such as in 97. Didn't Schembechler enter New Year's day with a chance a few times? Looking at Wikipedia, it appears they were number 2 going into the Rose Bowl in 1976 and had they won and Pitt lost, they would have won the title. Wisconsin has nothing of the kind in their history.

super-team structure.

The existing system lets lots of teams have "successful" seasons.

Are Wisconsin, Penn State and Iowa going to fill their stadiums for a bunch of .500 seasons or worse? I don't think so.

I really have no idea how things turn out, but I am not particularly optimistic or excited about it as a fan, but it's been on its way for a while. JT had a good example elsewhere in the thread - Colorado losing their coach to Michigan State. I wasn't aware of that one, but where does that landscape leave Colorado? - Nowhere with no chance.

I wonder if the powers-that-be recognize the W-L issues and will do something to maintain inflated winning percentages and the number of "successful" seasons. I'm not sure it will work if it looks too lopsided/fraudulent.

stab at what that might look like using the teams on my list in the OP:

East: Clemson, Florida State, Va Tech, NC State, West Virginia, Miami, North Carolina

West: USC, UCLA, Washington, BYU, Oregon, Arizona State, Colorado, Arizona, Cal, Stanford

Everybody else gets cut.

With the Big Ten, SEC, and ND, that's 48. Any other cuts would have to come from the Big Ten and SEC.

and there are even some "haves" that people wouldn't normally think of as haves (like Michigan State from the previous example, but also some other schools).

Also, how will they solve the issues for bringing other sports? Will there be a way for teams to "move up" from the lower division? Will they stay with the NCAA or break away?