This super league idea floating around is never going to fly. There’s far too much in that proposal that the P2 would find objectionable.

The one aspect I did find interesting was the idea of a G5 super league and giving the winner of the G5 super league a playoff berth as opposed to trying to come to a determination as to which of the 5 is the best.

I like the idea of having 10 of the top G5s playing an 8 game “conference” schedule among themselves.

Schools would remain members of their home leagues in all sports but football. Their Home tv rights would stay with their home leagues.

There’d need to be some flexibility in scheduling to help schools adjust schedules on short notice.

The questions to answer would be how many schools promote/relegate annually and what the process would be for determining the initial 10?

The AAC and MWC would probably want a more merit-based approach while the MAC, SBC, and C-USA are going to want a more equal distribution.

Personally, I think it’s an interesting concept and would add a lot of interest to the post season for 5 leagues who really don’t have much to play for.

Love the idea.

Have it split into 3 tiers. Make each tier large enough to have a full round robin divisional schedule then have a championship game.

I: 18 teams East/West
II: 18 teams East/West
III: Everyone Else East/West

They could promote regulate the bottom 3 every year by winning percentage.

It would allow for more interesting home schedules and provide variation to the fans.

(04-04-2024 03:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The AAC and MWC would probably want a more merit-based approach while the MAC, SBC, and C-USA are going to want a more equal distribution.

That ought to get you some fun replies. Heck, I'll go first.


Are we defining "merit" as "budget" or "market size?" Because if that's how you define "merit" I agree that the AAC will prefer that to equal (or actual merit).

If you have a 10 team super league, you could have two five-team divisions, play a four game super-league schedule, a six game conference schedule, and still have room for two OOC games.

The two division winners play for the Go5 Super League conference championship during CCG week, and the winner goes to the CFP14.

As far as merit based versus equal based representation, it could well start out equal representation, but if the top five from the previous season hold their spot, and each Go5 conference every year sends their best team not in the Super League, the numbers will sort themselves out.

To even out the scheduling, the Go5 schools drop down to six conference games and have two allocated Go5 on Go5 OOC games per school.

A Go5 school scheduling guarantee buy games per year would need all but one to have a Super League escape clause in case the school ends up in the Super League that year.

(04-04-2024 04:33 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 03:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The AAC and MWC would probably want a more merit-based approach while the MAC, SBC, and C-USA are going to want a more equal distribution.

That ought to get you some fun replies. Heck, I'll go first.


Are we defining "merit" as "budget" or "market size?" Because if that's how you define "merit" I agree that the AAC will prefer that to equal (or actual merit).

He is probably defining merit as eyeballs on screens / national interest. I have no problem with that definition. On the field, it's a different story, none of the five G5 conferences are heads and tails better than the other four. The SBC will argue regular season, CUSA will argue bowl season, but we're all really in the same boat compared to the P2 / M2.

By merit I’m referring to looking at things purely on computer rankings. The MWC and AAC have more teams among the top of the G5 most of the time. There’s a reason why this is where the P-leagues go for replacements.

I’d propose building the initial 10 by placing the 5 champs in the league and then the other 5 based on the results of bowl games between the 10 top ranked remaining G5s: 1 vs 10, 2 vs 9, etc.

Wash St, Ore St, and UConn would need to join a G5 for football to do so.

(04-04-2024 05:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  By merit I’m referring to looking at things purely on computer rankings. The MWC and AAC have more teams among the top of the G5 most of the time. There’s a reason why this is where the P-leagues go for replacements.

I'd argue that this has largely been school-specific rather than league specific.

(04-04-2024 04:43 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  If you have a 10 team super league, you could have two five-team divisions, play a four game super-league schedule, a six game conference schedule, and still have room for two OOC games.

The two division winners play for the Go5 Super League conference championship during CCG week, and the winner goes to the CFP14.

As far as merit based versus equal based representation, it could well start out equal representation, but if the top five from the previous season hold their spot, and each Go5 conference every year sends their best team not in the Super League, the numbers will sort themselves out.

To even out the scheduling, the Go5 schools drop down to six conference games and have two allocated Go5 on Go5 OOC games per school.

A Go5 school scheduling guarantee buy games per year would need all but one to have a Super League escape clause in case the school ends up in the Super League that year.

I think this largely sounds worse than what we have on the whole, but maybe better than what we'd otherwise end up with.

Maybe not. I'd have to think it through. My initial reaction is that fewer conference games (for all of CFB) is a negative thing. I do think that. But I'd also be TOTALLY fine with fewer league games for my school right now (I've said several times, I think I'd have rather CUSA gone to 8 than 10/11/12 because there are probably a dozen OOC G5 schools I'd just as soon/rather play than anyone in our conference and that this probably applies to every CUSA team for the most part). So, hmmm. Need to process.

(04-04-2024 05:35 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 04:43 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  If you have a 10 team super league, you could have two five-team divisions, play a four game super-league schedule, a six game conference schedule, and still have room for two OOC games.

The two division winners play for the Go5 Super League conference championship during CCG week, and the winner goes to the CFP14.

As far as merit based versus equal based representation, it could well start out equal representation, but if the top five from the previous season hold their spot, and each Go5 conference every year sends their best team not in the Super League, the numbers will sort themselves out.

To even out the scheduling, the Go5 schools drop down to six conference games and have two allocated Go5 on Go5 OOC games per school.

A Go5 school scheduling guarantee buy games per year would need all but one to have a Super League escape clause in case the school ends up in the Super League that year.

I think this largely sounds worse than what we have on the whole, but maybe better than what we'd otherwise end up with.

Maybe not. I'd have to think it through. My initial reaction is that fewer conference games (for all of CFB) is a negative thing. I do think that. But I'd also be TOTALLY fine with fewer league games for my school right now (I've said several times, I think I'd have rather CUSA gone to 8 than 10/11/12 because there are probably a dozen OOC G5 schools I'd just as soon/rather play than anyone in our conference and that this probably applies to every CUSA team for the most part). So, hmmm. Need to process.

And this is where you can’t see the Stanford tree because of the Wake Forest. Better programs = better conference = where the P leagues get call ups

Utah, BYU, and TCU all come from MWC legacies.
In the past couple years, the AAC placed Cincinnati, UCF, Houston, and SMU into the M2.

You have to go back to 2004 to find the last time one of the other 3 G-leagues elevated a team into what was then the BCS, and that C-USA was:

Louisville — currently ACC
Cincinnati— currently Big 12
Houston— currently Big 12
TCU— currently Big 12
Memphis— currently AAC
USF— currently AAC
Tulane— currently AAC
ECU— currently AAC
UAB — currently AAC
Army — currently AAC
USM — currently SBC

The 2004 C-USA more or less has seen its entire membership elevated to the AAC or higher, save USM.

Sure.

And now those conferences have different schools.

I do not think merit based (highest rated) is the wrong approach at all. I just think Houston does not play in the AAC anymore.

(04-04-2024 04:43 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  If you have a 10 team super league, you could have two five-team divisions, play a four game super-league schedule, a six game conference schedule, and still have room for two OOC games.

The two division winners play for the Go5 Super League conference championship during CCG week, and the winner goes to the CFP14.

As far as merit based versus equal based representation, it could well start out equal representation, but if the top five from the previous season hold their spot, and each Go5 conference every year sends their best team not in the Super League, the numbers will sort themselves out.

To even out the scheduling, the Go5 schools drop down to six conference games and have two allocated Go5 on Go5 OOC games per school.

A Go5 school scheduling guarantee buy games per year would need all but one to have a Super League escape clause in case the school ends up in the Super League that year.

This is largely what I would say. You don't have to shift the G5 down to 6 conference games. Keep it at 8, but you'd have to include 2 games for each member in the Super League. So the 10 Mountain West teams each play 8 conference games, but 4 of those fill the last two games in Boise and Air Forces' Super League schedules.

As long as a G5 conference has 9 teams in its home football conference (8, if a conference of 12+) there won't be any scheduling issues.

(04-04-2024 05:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  By merit I’m referring to looking at things purely on computer rankings. The MWC and AAC have more teams among the top of the G5 most of the time. There’s a reason why this is where the P-leagues go for replacements.

I’d propose building the initial 10 by placing the 5 champs in the league and then the other 5 based on the results of bowl games between the 10 top ranked remaining G5s: 1 vs 10, 2 vs 9, etc.

Wash St, Ore St, and UConn would need to join a G5 for football to do so.

This is pretty good for initial seeding. I honestly think they'd just give 2 to each conference to start out and replace the bottom 5 with the G5 champs each year.

How about this. Start with 2 each to the MW and AAC, 1 to the other 3, and 3 spots determined by bowl (1 team per conference and 1 at large). Every year, 5 teams are on the relegation chopping block. The top 2 G5 champs are automatically promoted while the last 3 G5 champs play in those same 3 pro/rel bowl games to determine the final 3 spots. Up to 3 bowl-eligible would-be relegated teams in the Super League can play in those bowls to keep their spots; at large teams fill any gaps.

(04-04-2024 03:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This super league idea floating around is never going to fly. There’s far too much in that proposal that the P2 would find objectionable.

The one aspect I did find interesting was the idea of a G5 super league and giving the winner of the G5 super league a playoff berth as opposed to trying to come to a determination as to which of the 5 is the best.

I like the idea of having 10 of the top G5s playing an 8 game “conference” schedule among themselves.

Schools would remain members of their home leagues in all sports but football. Their Home tv rights would stay with their home leagues.

There’d need to be some flexibility in scheduling to help schools adjust schedules on short notice.

The questions to answer would be how many schools promote/relegate annually and what the process would be for determining the initial 10?

The AAC and MWC would probably want a more merit-based approach while the MAC, SBC, and C-USA are going to want a more equal distribution.

Personally, I think it’s an interesting concept and would add a lot of interest to the post season for 5 leagues who really don’t have much to play for.

How does one determine who the best 10 G5 teams will be before any of them have even played a single game? Especially in the transfer portal era, where top G5 talent is used to restock P4 programs, using prior years' results to select teams doesn't seem to make much sense. A top team in one season whose transcendent quarterback gets poached by a P4 program could be mediocre or worse the next season.

I don’t think you need to turnover 5 of 10 Super G5 slots. 2 maybe 3 max.

As far as scheduling goes, being in the G5 super league means 8 games against the other 9 super league games. If you’ve got someone from your home league that you really want to play, you gotta squeeze them into your 4 OOC slots. Leagues would need to be flexible and help schools out. (i.e. if Toledo is in the Super League but BG is in the MAC, someone might have to swap some OOC games around so they don’t lose their rivalry game)

It's not going to be worth the travel costs to create a G5 Super League.

(04-04-2024 08:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 03:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This super league idea floating around is never going to fly. There’s far too much in that proposal that the P2 would find objectionable.

The one aspect I did find interesting was the idea of a G5 super league and giving the winner of the G5 super league a playoff berth as opposed to trying to come to a determination as to which of the 5 is the best.

I like the idea of having 10 of the top G5s playing an 8 game “conference” schedule among themselves.

Schools would remain members of their home leagues in all sports but football. Their Home tv rights would stay with their home leagues.

There’d need to be some flexibility in scheduling to help schools adjust schedules on short notice.

The questions to answer would be how many schools promote/relegate annually and what the process would be for determining the initial 10?

The AAC and MWC would probably want a more merit-based approach while the MAC, SBC, and C-USA are going to want a more equal distribution.

Personally, I think it’s an interesting concept and would add a lot of interest to the post season for 5 leagues who really don’t have much to play for.

How does one determine who the best 10 G5 teams will be before any of them have even played a single game? Especially in the transfer portal era, where top G5 talent is used to restock P4 programs, using prior years' results to select teams doesn't seem to make much sense. A top team in one season whose transcendent quarterback gets poached by a P4 program could be mediocre or worse the next season.

Prior season’s results, obviously. 2024’s post season results determine the 2025’s line up. The transfer portal should make it easy for teams to to reload or build talent, especially in a promotion year.

(04-04-2024 08:26 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  It's not going to be worth the travel costs to create a G5 Super League.

The AAC, MWC, and C-USA are all majority flights for conference games. Only the MAC and SBC remain as predominantly bus leagues and the SBC is only due to division structure.

Some ideas to maximize the value of the G5 Division within the Super League.

a) Each G5 conference champion gets promoted annually (5)
b) Winner of the G5 playoff gets promoted annually (0/1)
c) Lowest 5/6 teams in the Super League get relegated annually

Up to 5 teams from the same G5 conference can be in the Super League.
Teams with consistently winning records (e.g., Boise State) could spend decades in the Super League.

I'm skeptical it produces enough revenue to blow up local games people like;

(04-04-2024 08:25 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t think you need to turnover 5 of 10 Super G5 slots. 2 maybe 3 max.

As far as scheduling goes, being in the G5 super league means 8 games against the other 9 super league games. If you’ve got someone from your home league that you really want to play, you gotta squeeze them into your 4 OOC slots. Leagues would need to be flexible and help schools out. (i.e. if Toledo is in the Super League but BG is in the MAC, someone might have to swap some OOC games around so they don’t lose their rivalry game)

(04-04-2024 08:26 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  It's not going to be worth the travel costs to create a G5 Super League.

Having the "super league" be a group stage before a Super League Championship Game would mitigate the travel cost issues.

Destroying the Battle for Michigan or the Battle for I-75 or the Battle of the Bricks or the Wagon wheel because one of the schools in the rivalry has been promoted into a media gimmick league would be one way to go, but if that is the approach, it sucks.

(04-04-2024 08:25 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t think you need to turnover 5 of 10 Super G5 slots. 2 maybe 3 max.

As far as scheduling goes, being in the G5 super league means 8 games against the other 9 super league games. If you’ve got someone from your home league that you really want to play, you gotta squeeze them into your 4 OOC slots. Leagues would need to be flexible and help schools out. (i.e. if Toledo is in the Super League but BG is in the MAC, someone might have to swap some OOC games around so they don’t lose their rivalry game)

There isn’t much incentive for minimizing turnover. There aren’t financial difficulties because teams are still payed by their home conference. Promoting all 5 champions is fine, but make champions 3-5 play in pro/rel bowls to give bowl eligible Super League teams a chance to stay.

BruceMcF had the right idea of only 6 Super League games and 2 games vs. your home conference. Those home conference games will be part of their opponents’ 8 game conference schedule. This opens up loads of flexibility. All teams keep their 4 OOC games no matter what and don’t have to scramble the Spring before to trade OOC contracts with other conferences. When Toledo is promoted, Bowling Green will simply be one of their 2 home conference opponents.