(09-07-2022 07:58 AM)Golden Jedi Knight Wrote:  I know this has been said over and over and over again, but I think it needs to keep on being discussed, repeated, recited repeatedly until, God willing, it someday happens. Hopefully, the right people with the power to do something about it will do something. The only exceptions I would make is if the conference champion had a record of, let's say, 5-7 or worse, or if there was some disciplinary reason why they shouldn't be allowed in. I don't know what you know with the independents in FBS; that's something else worth discussion. But allow ALL the FBS conference champions in: Sun Belt, C-USA, American, Mountain West, MAC, PAC-12 (if it still exists in the coming years), Big 12, ACC, Big 10, and SEC.

The 6+6 format gets the job done imo.

1) It carves out the best G5 no matter what. I'm not naïve enough to think that every G5 champ can knock off a top 12 P5 team. The best one certainly can.

2) The top 6 (not P5+1) is also a safety valve for when one of the P5s produces a garbage champ, which definitely happens.

I mean, it's really closer to perfection than I could have asked for.

All that said, I HAVE argued this whole time that the format (at least somewhat) dictates parity. A 4-team playoff with 5 power conferences is the main reason I attribute to the PAC-12 becoming awful. If we follow that rationale, it stands to reason that a conference like the MAC having a spot in the playoff probably makes the MAC better as a result.

(09-07-2022 05:56 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Keep it simple: 16 teams, all 10 conference champs, plus 6 at large. Yeah maybe there are some blowouts early but eventually the gap will close. Any other scenario based on rankings is inherently biased.

This should be the next step, then go to 24 down the road and enjoy.

Yes the gap will close when you have unobstructed access and the playoff issue cannot be used against you in recruiting.

(09-07-2022 07:58 AM)Golden Jedi Knight Wrote:  I know this has been said over and over and over again, but I think it needs to keep on being discussed, repeated, recited repeatedly until, God willing, it someday happens. Hopefully, the right people with the power to do something about it will do something. The only exceptions I would make is if the conference champion had a record of, let's say, 5-7 or worse, or if there was some disciplinary reason why they shouldn't be allowed in. I don't know what you know with the independents in FBS; that's something else worth discussion. But allow ALL the FBS conference champions in: Sun Belt, C-USA, American, Mountain West, MAC, PAC-12 (if it still exists in the coming years), Big 12, ACC, Big 10, and SEC.

Absolutely correct, and it could be done very easily by adopting a 16-team playoff system with 6 at-large bids. This would virtually guarantee that the nation's top 10 or top 12-ranked teams would be among the teams competing for the CFP championship.

NOTE: This formula has worked out very well for the extremely successful NCAA tournament, which provides auto bids to every conf. champion.

In addition to providing each conference champ an equal opportunity to compete for the post-season championship, another benefit is that there would be no first-round bye. It is extremely unfair and unequal to provide the top 4 seeded teams with a first-round bye.

.

(09-07-2022 02:19 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Is the purpose of the playoffs to crown a champion or to reward teams for a great season playing mostly their peers?

If you believe the former the 6+6, with the 6 being the champions from the highest rated 6 conferences is your answer.

If you're fine with the first round being blowouts (much like the semifinals are now BTW) and prefer rewarding conference champions it's the latter.

I think the 6+6 provides the best playoff which is the goal.

The 6+6 is way better than the current playoff. But it’s really just a way to pacify all of us “Group of Five” schools. Now, they can just give us a single spot, and eliminate much of the debating that’s been going on at the end of each season about whether or not an undefeated UCF or whoever is worthy enough to be in the playoff. Forget about two G5 schools, it will never happen. They’ll make sure of it. But the good thing about the 6+6, is whoever makes it will not be matched up first round against the #1 team. They’ll have a better chance to show we belong.

(09-07-2022 10:14 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:19 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Is the purpose of the playoffs to crown a champion or to reward teams for a great season playing mostly their peers?

If you believe the former the 6+6, with the 6 being the champions from the highest rated 6 conferences is your answer.

If you're fine with the first round being blowouts (much like the semifinals are now BTW) and prefer rewarding conference champions it's the latter.

I think the 6+6 provides the best playoff which is the goal.

The 6+6 is way better than the current playoff. But it’s really just a way to pacify all of us “Group of Five” schools. Now, they can just give us a single spot, and eliminate much of the debating that’s been going on at the end of each season about whether or not an undefeated UCF or whoever is worthy enough to be in the playoff. Forget about two G5 schools, it will never happen. They’ll make sure of it. But the good thing about the 6+6, is whoever makes it will not be matched up first round against the #1 team. They’ll have a better chance to show we belong.

Can you tell me the last 10 MAC or Sun belt winners and which one of them was going to win the National championship?

As a G5 fan I’m all for let’s play the games and let the on field results matter but 12 is plenty and the way it’s set up should ensure only quality teams get into the playoff

(09-07-2022 02:42 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:38 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  Should be the top teams, no matter what conference they come from. But I understand wanting at least one slot guaranteed for the top G5 champion because the polls are always going to be some bias towards the P5. The hot G5 program of the moment has to be good for years before they will even be considered. This would at least be a shield against that. 6 champs plus 6 at large makes sense to me.

As much as I'm a fan of the G5, having by default the same number of conference champs in the playoffs as the P5 would be unfair to teams that are better than those champs but missed out on the playoffs because they played a tougher schedule and didn't win their P5 conference. Let the best perceived teams in and guarantee one slot for the G5's best team.

The G5 is 1-44 vs the P5 this season. Using the massey ratings adjusted for the 2023 configurations, the highest rated G5 is over 30 spots behind the lowest rated P5. The gap is getting much wider, and if it's about fairness, all of the G5 champs would not be in the Top 12. Most of them probably not even close.

You can argue it's set up by power brokers for the consolidation of resources and opportunity at the top of college football, and that that's unfair to begin with, but that's another argument entirely.

Problem is that a really great team from a really lousy conference does NOT get in. If you're an undefeated conference champion you should be in, so you can prove yourself in the next round.

Name one in the last 20 years that would have been left out under the new 12 team setup. One great G5 conference champion that would of missed out. Louisiana going to a playoff last year while they wouldn’t win one game in the SEC West would be laughable.

(09-07-2022 05:56 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Keep it simple: 16 teams, all 10 conference champs, plus 6 at large. Yeah maybe there are some blowouts early but eventually the gap will close. Any other scenario based on rankings is inherently biased.

If there wasn’t so much money involved, we would have this. It would be embraced. The separation from top to bottom is too huge. It used to not be this way. The gap from top to bottom used to be much closer. The adjudication of BCS in 1998 disrupted everything. Steve Logan said the ECU recruiting fell off a cliff after that happened. Because we were not apart of the BCS. And we started losing a lot of the recruits to the ACC schools in NC, because they were being told that they would never be able to win a National Championship at East Carolina. So that was the start of all of this garbage. And as the BCS started making money, it naturally flowed heavily toward the conferences who were a part of the BCS. And the separation from the haves and the have-nots began to grow.

A couple of years ago, the Knight Commission conducted an extensive study of the financials in college football. They went all the way back to the early 2000’s. In 2004, the schools at the top spent four times the amount the schools at the bottom were spending for infrastructure, coaches, etc. Fast forward to 2020 and the separation in spending was ten times greater from top to bottom, and the gap is continuing to expand. It’s no wonder why the G5 schools can’t compete. It’s a rigged game. The playing field is not level.

(09-07-2022 06:00 PM)Sea Pirate Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:19 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Is the purpose of the playoffs to crown a champion or to reward teams for a great season playing mostly their peers?

If you believe the former the 6+6, with the 6 being the champions from the highest rated 6 conferences is your answer.

If you're fine with the first round being blowouts (much like the semifinals are now BTW) and prefer rewarding conference champions it's the latter.

I think the 6+6 provides the best playoff which is the goal.

Agree. Putting in every conference champ is insane. One G5 champ will get in, at least, but let's face it, you would water the playoffs down by including all 5. Winning CUSA does not equal winning the SEC or B1G.

Plus, theoretically, any other G5 team, champ or not, will make the CFP if they rank in the top 12. Not likely, but not impossible, as it was before.

it may not equal the SEC champ but that’s why you have seeding. I would love to see all D1 conference champs get in.

Nobody thought UMBC could beat number 1 seed UVA either but it happened.

The NCAA is reportedly considering dropping the requirement that all conference champs get a bid to the Tournament. Just because a team can upset another team is no reason to include 32 conference champs.

Nobody in his right mind thinks all 32 champs deserve a bid, thus limiting the number of better teams that can get in, and that's with 68 slots, lol. That's why they're considering the change. Same with football.

Now, if you want to go all DIII, make the CFP 24 teams, and let all 10 in, fine. But at 12, that is just nonsensical, IMO.

(09-07-2022 10:35 PM)vcoog Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 10:14 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:19 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Is the purpose of the playoffs to crown a champion or to reward teams for a great season playing mostly their peers?

If you believe the former the 6+6, with the 6 being the champions from the highest rated 6 conferences is your answer.

If you're fine with the first round being blowouts (much like the semifinals are now BTW) and prefer rewarding conference champions it's the latter.

I think the 6+6 provides the best playoff which is the goal.

The 6+6 is way better than the current playoff. But it’s really just a way to pacify all of us “Group of Five” schools. Now, they can just give us a single spot, and eliminate much of the debating that’s been going on at the end of each season about whether or not an undefeated UCF or whoever is worthy enough to be in the playoff. Forget about two G5 schools, it will never happen. They’ll make sure of it. But the good thing about the 6+6, is whoever makes it will not be matched up first round against the #1 team. They’ll have a better chance to show we belong.

Can you tell me the last 10 MAC or Sun belt winners and which one of them was going to win the National championship?

As a G5 fan I’m all for let’s play the games and let the on field results matter but 12 is plenty and the way it’s set up should ensure only quality teams get into the playoff

I think people focus too much on who can win the championship.

1) Most of the NCAA basketball tournament lineup can't make it all the way. Mostly the final four are 1 or 2 seeds.

2) I like to think that the format of that tournament has made non-P5 teams more competitive. Gonzaga and Villanova aren't getting high seed bids regularly if the tournament only let in 4 teams. I think the same thing will happen with the playoff. The fact that it's possible for a team to make it in with just a miracle season and not a bunch of outside help will probably make teams from the conferences that used to be locked out better.

3) (my main main takeaway) The matchups between #5/#12 and #8/#9 are already happening. They are already being played on the non-playoff NY6 bowls. They just happen to not matter, so not a lot of casual fans watch, a lot of players sit out, and most people take their results with a grain of salt. The main question being answered in playoff expansion is, would you like those games to matter? I would.

(09-07-2022 10:35 PM)vcoog Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 10:14 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:19 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Is the purpose of the playoffs to crown a champion or to reward teams for a great season playing mostly their peers?

If you believe the former the 6+6, with the 6 being the champions from the highest rated 6 conferences is your answer.

If you're fine with the first round being blowouts (much like the semifinals are now BTW) and prefer rewarding conference champions it's the latter.

I think the 6+6 provides the best playoff which is the goal.

The 6+6 is way better than the current playoff. But it’s really just a way to pacify all of us “Group of Five” schools. Now, they can just give us a single spot, and eliminate much of the debating that’s been going on at the end of each season about whether or not an undefeated UCF or whoever is worthy enough to be in the playoff. Forget about two G5 schools, it will never happen. They’ll make sure of it. But the good thing about the 6+6, is whoever makes it will not be matched up first round against the #1 team. They’ll have a better chance to show we belong.

Can you tell me the last 10 MAC or Sun belt winners and which one of them was going to win the National championship?

As a G5 fan I’m all for let’s play the games and let the on field results matter but 12 is plenty and the way it’s set up should ensure only quality teams get into the playoff

No I cannot tell you the last ten MAC or Sunbelt champs. I probably couldn’t even tell you all the AAC champs. I could guess. The point is, the rankings are overly biased toward power schools. For example, in 2019, seven G5 schools made the final AP top 25 poll. At the beginning of the season, there was only one ranked G5 school. If they were ranked appropriately at the beginning of the season, some of these other G5 schools could maybe stand a chance of making the new 12 team playoff. But they won’t ever be. Oregon got steamrolled this past weekend. If that had been a G5 school, the narrative would’ve been, well that’s a G5 school. They have no business playing Georgia. And Oregon was ranked #11. And now they are just outside the top 25. I would bet money UTSA or App State could beat them now if they played, but neither one of them are even close to the top 25. The rankings are biased. It’s a rigged game. You all should want more parity in college football.

G5 conferences would split to take advantage of the auto bids.

In a 12-team CFP we would end up with a P5 and a G7 to fill all the slots with auto bids.

Eastern American Conference
USF
FAU
ECU
Charlotte
Temple
UAB
Tulane
Memphis

Western American Conference
SMU
UTSA
Rice
UNT
Tulsa
Louisiana
Arkansas State
USM

Etc... Etc... for the MWC and Sunbelt till you get to 7 conferences

Seed all of the teams based on their records in the regular season, then play a 130 team tournament to determine the national champion.

All conference champions are guaranteed a 1st round bye.

(09-07-2022 02:19 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Is the purpose of the playoffs to crown a champion or to reward teams for a great season playing mostly their peers?

If you believe the former the 6+6, with the 6 being the champions from the highest rated 6 conferences is your answer.

If you're fine with the first round being blowouts (much like the semifinals are now BTW) and prefer rewarding conference champions it's the latter.

I think the 6+6 provides the best playoff which is the goal.

Honestly, neither. It's ALWAYS been about the $$$$$ as thats why they instituted the 4 team CFP in the first place...and the only reason its going to 12 teams is because the payout will go from $600 Million to at least $1.2 Billion.

Remember, NCAA wants nothing to do with Div I-A Football post-season, which is why its the only football division that they do not control the post-season

12 Team CFP is all about the $$$$...and one of the best ways they can sell that are the BRANDS that will most likely be involved (especially in different regions of the country).

DYK?

In the 8 years of the CFP (32 slots), only 13 teams about of 130 plus have made it to the CFP?

But if the CFP was 12 teams at the very beginning (8 years ago), 41 teams would have made the CFP during those 8 years....so imagine what some of those OTHER schools could have done in regards to more publicity, some success, boost on recruiting trail because they MADE the CFP, etc.....

The TV Networks WANT the 3rd place team from the Big Ten and the SEC and also a member from the Pac-12 (to help bring in the West Coast for the first time in YEARS) vs all conf champs.

Finally, remember, the Pac-12 Commish was NERVOUS about the top 6 Conf Champs get auto-bids...because he knew there would probably be years when not one but TWO G5 Champs would be ranked higher than the Pac-12 Champ...so the opportunity is there for multiple G5 Champs to earn an invite in the new 12 team CFP.

(09-07-2022 10:35 PM)vcoog Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 10:14 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:19 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Is the purpose of the playoffs to crown a champion or to reward teams for a great season playing mostly their peers?

If you believe the former the 6+6, with the 6 being the champions from the highest rated 6 conferences is your answer.

If you're fine with the first round being blowouts (much like the semifinals are now BTW) and prefer rewarding conference champions it's the latter.

I think the 6+6 provides the best playoff which is the goal.

The 6+6 is way better than the current playoff. But it’s really just a way to pacify all of us “Group of Five” schools. Now, they can just give us a single spot, and eliminate much of the debating that’s been going on at the end of each season about whether or not an undefeated UCF or whoever is worthy enough to be in the playoff. Forget about two G5 schools, it will never happen. They’ll make sure of it. But the good thing about the 6+6, is whoever makes it will not be matched up first round against the #1 team. They’ll have a better chance to show we belong.

Can you tell me the last 10 MAC or Sun belt winners and which one of them was going to win the National championship?

As a G5 fan I’m all for let’s play the games and let the on field results matter but 12 is plenty and the way it’s set up should ensure only quality teams get into the playoff

That’s not the point. Hell, Cincy had what was probably the best G5 team ever assembled and Alabama handled them easily.

From a G5 perspective, fighting for 10 auto bids makes sense even if the 6+6 is more “fair” from a competitive point of view. Even under the 6+6 format it will take a few years for resources and improved recruiting to take effect.

(09-08-2022 05:50 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 06:00 PM)Sea Pirate Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:19 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Is the purpose of the playoffs to crown a champion or to reward teams for a great season playing mostly their peers?

If you believe the former the 6+6, with the 6 being the champions from the highest rated 6 conferences is your answer.

If you're fine with the first round being blowouts (much like the semifinals are now BTW) and prefer rewarding conference champions it's the latter.

I think the 6+6 provides the best playoff which is the goal.

Agree. Putting in every conference champ is insane. One G5 champ will get in, at least, but let's face it, you would water the playoffs down by including all 5. Winning CUSA does not equal winning the SEC or B1G.

Plus, theoretically, any other G5 team, champ or not, will make the CFP if they rank in the top 12. Not likely, but not impossible, as it was before.

it may not equal the SEC champ but that’s why you have seeding. I would love to see all D1 conference champs get in.

Nobody thought UMBC could beat number 1 seed UVA either but it happened.

The NCAA is reportedly considering dropping the requirement that all conference champs get a bid to the Tournament. Just because a team can upset another team is no reason to include 32 conference champs.

Nobody in his right mind thinks all 32 champs deserve a bid, thus limiting the number of better teams that can get in, and that's with 68 slots, lol. That's why they're considering the change. Same with football.

Now, if you want to go all DIII, make the CFP 24 teams, and let all 10 in, fine. But at 12, that is just nonsensical, IMO.

If they do this(drop conference champs from the NCAAs) interest will also drop. If you want college sports to reach a larger audience, you open up competition, you don’t stifle it. Look at the NFL; draft in reverse order of finish, schedules based on order of finish, the intent is to create opportunities for bad teams to become better. And the NFL has far superior viewership to CFB, because more fans believe their team has a chance. CFB is run by small minds who want larger slices of a shrinking pie, instead of baking more pies.

The idea that the system as it exists is unfair to the 10th best team in the Big Ten is arguably true but outweighed by their having every other conceivable advantage over the champion of the Summit League. Ultimately, none of them are going to win the whole thing. No team seeded below 8 ever has, I believe. If that's our criteria, we can leave them both out. But that's not what people want because that's not what it's about.

Anyhow, it seems like the basketball tourney talk has shifted to simply including more teams (I think someone suggested 80). It's much harder to expand enough to bring in all the football champions, so I think having additional criteria makes sense.

(09-08-2022 11:05 AM)vick mike Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 05:50 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 06:00 PM)Sea Pirate Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:19 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Is the purpose of the playoffs to crown a champion or to reward teams for a great season playing mostly their peers?

If you believe the former the 6+6, with the 6 being the champions from the highest rated 6 conferences is your answer.

If you're fine with the first round being blowouts (much like the semifinals are now BTW) and prefer rewarding conference champions it's the latter.

I think the 6+6 provides the best playoff which is the goal.

Agree. Putting in every conference champ is insane. One G5 champ will get in, at least, but let's face it, you would water the playoffs down by including all 5. Winning CUSA does not equal winning the SEC or B1G.

Plus, theoretically, any other G5 team, champ or not, will make the CFP if they rank in the top 12. Not likely, but not impossible, as it was before.

it may not equal the SEC champ but that’s why you have seeding. I would love to see all D1 conference champs get in.

Nobody thought UMBC could beat number 1 seed UVA either but it happened.

The NCAA is reportedly considering dropping the requirement that all conference champs get a bid to the Tournament. Just because a team can upset another team is no reason to include 32 conference champs.

Nobody in his right mind thinks all 32 champs deserve a bid, thus limiting the number of better teams that can get in, and that's with 68 slots, lol. That's why they're considering the change. Same with football.

Now, if you want to go all DIII, make the CFP 24 teams, and let all 10 in, fine. But at 12, that is just nonsensical, IMO.

If they do this(drop conference champs from the NCAAs) interest will also drop. If you want college sports to reach a larger audience, you open up competition, you don’t stifle it. Look at the NFL; draft in reverse order of finish, schedules based on order of finish, the intent is to create opportunities for bad teams to become better. And the NFL has far superior viewership to CFB, because more fans believe their team has a chance. CFB is run by small minds who want larger slices of a shrinking pie, instead of baking more pies.

NFL viewership is high due to gambling and fantasy sports. That has nothing to do with parity. Again, why do so many fans watch the Super Bowl when their teams arent even involved?

(09-07-2022 06:02 PM)Sea Pirate Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:37 PM)VirginiaPirate Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 02:19 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Is the purpose of the playoffs to crown a champion or to reward teams for a great season playing mostly their peers?

If you believe the former the 6+6, with the 6 being the champions from the highest rated 6 conferences is your answer.

If you're fine with the first round being blowouts (much like the semifinals are now BTW) and prefer rewarding conference champions it's the latter.

I think the 6+6 provides the best playoff which is the goal.

Agree. Putting in every conference champ is insane. One G5 champ will get in, at least, but let's face it, you would water the playoffs down by including all 5. Winning CUSA does not equal winning the SEC or B1G.

Plus, theoretically, any other G5 team, champ or not, will make the CFP if they rank in the top 12. Not likely, but not impossible, as it was before.

________________________________________________________________

Just has to be the top 6 ranked conference champs (which throws the top G5 league a bone) so you could have a #20 ECU or App St be the top G5 and get in without being Top 12. The Top 12 is more for at large spots. But clearly the Top 12 is a predictor of the teams most likely to make the Natty game.

I know UC/UCF/Houston are all in on the B12 but this change theoretically makes it harder for them to make the playoff. If they stayed in the AAC imo they would have a much better and clearer shot at an auto-bid. Yes I know the B12 TV deal will pay them more. I’m talking about making the playoff.

Maybe---maybe not. I think the nBig12 will be pretty similar to the AAC in that there is no single "Alabama" or Ohio St type program standing in the way of the championship. Like the AAC, there are lots of solid programs----but I suspect different schools will rise up any given year to win the league----and its winner will almost always be a top 6 champ. So yes---it may be harder to win a B12 conference championship---but on the other hand---a B12 champion probably has a higher chance of actually being in the playoff.

(09-07-2022 07:58 AM)Golden Jedi Knight Wrote:  I know this has been said over and over and over again, but I think it needs to keep on being discussed, repeated, recited repeatedly until, God willing, it someday happens. Hopefully, the right people with the power to do something about it will do something. The only exceptions I would make is if the conference champion had a record of, let's say, 5-7 or worse, or if there was some disciplinary reason why they shouldn't be allowed in. I don't know what you know with the independents in FBS; that's something else worth discussion. But allow ALL the FBS conference champions in: Sun Belt, C-USA, American, Mountain West, MAC, PAC-12 (if it still exists in the coming years), Big 12, ACC, Big 10, and SEC.

I don't agree, because IMO, FBS is not a "league" in the sense that the NFL or NBA is. It was never organized to have a playoffs, and IMO conferences like the SEC and B1G are in no way shape or form competing on the same league-plane as the MAC, AAC, CUSA, etc.

Sure, the NCAA tournament lumps everyone in D1 together, including FCS. But that's the way basketball has always been organized, going back to 1939. Football is different, and IMO there's no reason to give G5 conferences auto-bids.

FWIW, I don't favor P2 or M3 autobids either, which is why I like 6+6

(09-07-2022 11:11 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(09-07-2022 05:56 PM)vick mike Wrote:  Keep it simple: 16 teams, all 10 conference champs, plus 6 at large. Yeah maybe there are some blowouts early but eventually the gap will close. Any other scenario based on rankings is inherently biased.

If there wasn’t so much money involved, we would have this. It would be embraced. The separation from top to bottom is too huge. It used to not be this way. The gap from top to bottom used to be much closer. The adjudication of BCS in 1998 disrupted everything. Steve Logan said the ECU recruiting fell off a cliff after that happened. Because we were not apart of the BCS. And we started losing a lot of the recruits to the ACC schools in NC, because they were being told that they would never be able to win a National Championship at East Carolina. So that was the start of all of this garbage. And as the BCS started making money, it naturally flowed heavily toward the conferences who were a part of the BCS. And the separation from the haves and the have-nots began to grow.

A couple of years ago, the Knight Commission conducted an extensive study of the financials in college football. They went all the way back to the early 2000’s. In 2004, the schools at the top spent four times the amount the schools at the bottom were spending for infrastructure, coaches, etc. Fast forward to 2020 and the separation in spending was ten times greater from top to bottom, and the gap is continuing to expand. It’s no wonder why the G5 schools can’t compete. It’s a rigged game. The playing field is not level.

I disagree with this. I've been watching CFB for over 50 years, and IMO it has always been dominated by an elite that were way, way better than the bottom. In 1973 schools like Notre Dame, USC, Nebraska, Michigan and Oklahoma were way, way better than the ECUs, Memphiss and Bowling Greens of college football. Way way better.

There have been some changes. The main one being the emergence of the three Florida schools in to the ranks of elite powers. In 1974, FSU, Florida and Miami were nothing and never had been anything. That changed, but IMO not much else has.

IMO, no recruit in the history of CFB ever believed that a national title could be won at ECU. Not during the BCS and not before it.

It would be interesting to see the record of elite P5 schools now and 25-30 years ago against G5 schools. I would guess that the records are very similar.