Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I don’t decide anything. I’m just stating the obvious.

But if somebody put me in charge I’d put the college back in college football, scale back the coaches pay, and put the extra money back to the university where it belongs , and go back to regional conferences.

Heck yeah, amen brutha.

I'd go back to conference alignments from around 1983, and the associated bowl affiliations.  Let the guys in the ugly sportcoats make the backroom deals again.  

The SEC is the NFC and the B1G is the AFC.

When we wind up with 2 conferences of 20+ programs each, I hope they don't forget to include the red-headed stepchildren. 

Without average ladies to compare them to, the hotties all start looking kind of 'meh.'

I still think if the goal is to be NFL-Lite (which seems to be the sport's trajectory), there's a point at which diluting the money by paying off the red-headed stepchildren is a less desirable outcome than simply excluding them and accepting that teams will have more losses every year. 

I think that these helmet teams knowing that the goal was a 12-0 or 11-1 season--and scheduling enough patsies to know that anything worse than 9-3 was off the table--was entirely predicated on the idea that you were excluded from the national championship if you DIDN'T have that record. 

But once the 12-team playoff comes in, it immediately changes the calculus of how many losses you can sustain. In a 130-team setup, as a helmet you need to be no worse than a 3-loss team, and may have to be a 2-loss team some years. 

And then go a step further. Let's say you can restrict your "big boy" breakaway division to 28 teams that only play each other, with a 12-team playoff. Now you can probably make the playoffs at 8-4. Maybe even 7-5. 

Keeping a team like Purdue in the field to pad your win totals just means you're letting them have a bunch of money that you want to keep for yourselves. 

The entirety of making everything about the NC excludes the red-headed stepchildren. Might as well just make it official. 

I still think if the goal is to be NFL-Lite (which seems to be the sport's trajectory), there's a point at which diluting the money by paying off the red-headed stepchildren is a less desirable outcome than simply excluding them and accepting that teams will have more losses every year.

I think that these helmet teams knowing that the goal was a 12-0 or 11-1 season--and scheduling enough patsies to know that anything worse than 9-3 was off the table--was entirely predicated on the idea that you were excluded from the national championship if you DIDN'T have that record.

But once the 12-team playoff comes in, it immediately changes the calculus of how many losses you can sustain. In a 130-team setup, as a helmet you need to be no worse than a 3-loss team, and may have to be a 2-loss team some years.

And then go a step further. Let's say you can restrict your "big boy" breakaway division to 28 teams that only play each other, with a 12-team playoff. Now you can probably make the playoffs at 8-4. Maybe even 7-5.

Keeping a team like Purdue in the field to pad your win totals just means you're letting them have a bunch of money that you want to keep for yourselves.

The entirety of making everything about the NC excludes the red-headed stepchildren. Might as well just make it official.

This makes me throw up in my mouth.

Simple.
Certain majors get an automatic bonus and you need a 3.5+ gpa in the non-automatic majors to qualify for brain dollars.

It's not that simple.

Being an engineering major at Auburn is not like being an engineering major at Florida.

the judge said you can't restrict the player's ability to make $$$

education and intelligence got nuttin to do wit it

But let's be transparent with the concept-- how many football players are studying engineering at ANY school?  Or ANY of the hardest disciplines, whatever they may be.  It's a really low number.

Quite a few at my school, honestly.

But also, a lot of communication arts (WTF?) and Ag journalism. More of those types than STEM, for sure.

Starting QB a few years ago was Civil Engineering. I connected with him on LinkedIn and offered him a job (as he was/is obviously disciplined).

He didn't want to move to Illinois (I don't blame him - I don't either).

Quite a few at my school, honestly.

But also, a lot of communication arts (WTF?) and Ag journalism. More of those types than STEM, for sure.

Starting QB a few years ago was Civil Engineering. I connected with him on LinkedIn and offered him a job (as he was/is obviously disciplined).

He didn't want to move to Illinois (I don't blame him - I don't either).

I can't find the link right now but when we looked at that report that compared football player SAT scores to general student SAT scores I don't remember Wisconsin standing out. 

Not saying there aren't a few legitimately good students playing ball at UW but I am saying that they are the exception, not the rule.