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

with (4) 16-team groups, really (8) 8-team regional conferences

if you simply take the large group of 64 teams, share the TV revenue equally, there's no need for negotiating different groups content with different media outlets

heck, simply auction each matchup (game)

Ohio St v Bama might be worth the most

Kansas v Oregon St. might be worth the least

with (4) 16-team groups, really (8) 8-team regional conferences

if you simply take the large group of 64 teams, share the TV revenue equally, there's no need for negotiating different groups content with different media outlets

heck, simply auction each matchup (game)

Ohio St v Bama might be worth the most

Kansas v Oregon St. might be worth the least

That's how I see it - NCAA football is a big, fat, tasty thing with a verrry devout consumer base.  I'd pay far more than I should in order to be able to watch college football, if it was itself a separate entity....as would huge swaths of people across the country.  
Imagine college football as a premium channel like HBO - $16/month, even prorated from Aug-Jan, we'd all do it.

I would pay more too, but college football wonks can only dream that every fan is a CFB nutjob like we all are.

Yes, and this is why there are still plenty of games that you don't need to subscribe to anything (not even basic cable) to watch.  
The money that CFB makes from fanatics like us pales in comparison to the advertising money they make from highly rated games.  They have to keep that money rolling in at the same time.  

medina, I guess your pod/groups idea seems like a caste system to me.  If it were implemented in 1950, Minnesota would be a top tier team.  If it was implemented in the 80s, Oregon would be way down the group list in the PAC.

We all know helmet status is slow to change, but it does change.  And if you have a long-term relegation system like top soccer leagues, I just don't think college football people would sign off on that.  Right or wrong, too many would just not like it, imo.

There is something that seems odd or perhaps misleading about calling my proposal a "caste system".  When I think of a caste system, I think of something that is set up to help the members of the higher caste and keep the members of the lower caste down.  My proposal, to the extent that it helps/hurts (which I think isn't very much overall), helps the members of the lower caste and hurts the members of the higher caste.  
Consider an example:
Think of a season in which Michigan and MSU both have good but not great teams that are about equal overall while the North and East Pods are combined to form a Northeast Division.  
Both the Spartans and Wolverines will have to play:

• Each other
• Purdue
• Northwestern
• Penn State
• Maryland
• Virginia
• North Carolina

The difference is that Michigan's other two opponents will be:

• Nebraska
• Ohio State

Michigan State's other two opponents will be:

• Iowa
• Rutgers

In their four years in the conference Rutgers has never finished less than five games behind Ohio State so the Spartans get a humongous advantage in playing a team that has finished 3-5, 1-7, 0-9, and 3-6 rather than a team that has finished 8-0, 7-1, 8-1, and 8-1 in those same four years.  

Nebraska/Iowa is closer.  Their records the last four years:

• 2014:  Iowa 4-4, Nebraska 5-3
• 2015:  Iowa 8-0, Nebraska 3-5
• 2016:  Iowa 6-3, Nebraska 6-3
• 2017:  Iowa 4-5, Nebraska 3-6

Over the last four years Iowa/Nebraska have been comparable (within one game) every year save 2015 when Iowa was substantially better.  Thus, over the last four years Michigan State's hypothetical SoS in my proposal (and with NE/SW Divisions) would have been easier than Michigan's every year save 2015 when Iowa being much better than Nebraska would have made up for Ohio State being much better than Rutgers.  Even in 2015 though, this wouldn't have been an advantage for Michigan, it would simply have put M/MSU on an even footing.  

With all of that said, I really don't think it is all that big of a difference and I think it is MUCH less of a difference than we have now:

In the current B1G structure we play our six divisional opponents and three opponents from the other division.  Fully one-third of a team's conference games each year can be different as compared to a divisional rival.  

Upthread you, @OrangeAfroMan mentioned a situation in which your team beat all of your divisional rivals and yet still failed to get to the CG.  The more non-divisional games you have the more likely this is.  In the current B1G structure it isn't very unlikely.  If, for example, Wisconsin goes 6-0 against the B1G-W but goes 0-3 against the three best teams in the B1G-E they finish 6-3.  A B1G-W team that goes 4-2 in the division and 3-0 against the worst three teams in the B1G-E would head to the B1GCG ahead of them.  

It is still possible, of course, with two non-divisional games.  It is possible anytime you have more than one, but the less you have or the smaller fraction of the schedule that they make up the less likely it becomes.  

Putting this all into your example:
Over the past four years, if Michigan had gone 7-0 in my hypothetical B1G-NE, in each year MSU would only have surpassed them for the B1GCG if:
2014:

• Michigan lost to 8-0 tOSU, and
• Michigan lost to 5-3 Nebraska, and
• Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
• Michigan State beat 4-4 Iowa, and
• Michigan State beat 3-5 Rutgers

2015:

• Michigan lost to 7-1 tOSU, and
• Michigan lost to 3-5 Nebraska, and
• Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
• Michigan State beat 8-0 Iowa, and
• Michigan State beat 1-7 Rutgers

2016:

• Michigan lost to 8-1 tOSU, and
• Michigan lost to 6-3 Nebraska, and
• Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
• Michigan State beat 6-3 Iowa, and
• Michigan State beat 0-9 Rutgers

2017:

• Michigan lost to 8-1 tOSU, and
• Michigan lost to 3-6 Nebraska, and
• Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
• Michigan State beat 4-5 Iowa, and
• Michigan State beat 3-6 Rutgers

If MSU had accomplished all of that in any of those years I would have felt that they earned their place in the B1GCG.  Even though they would have gotten into the B1GCG despite a loss to Michigan in any of those situations I wouldn't see it as egregiously unfair.  If a Michigan fan were complaining about it I would say:
2014:  Your team lost to a 5-3 team.  
2015:  Your team lost to a 3-5 team.  
2016:  Your team lost to a 6-3 team.  
2017:  Your team lost to a 3-6 team.  

I don't think that @OrangeAfroMan is the appropriate "control group" here.  He is a fanatic like us.  If Michigan isn't any good, he'll know it because he follows the sport.  I think the more important question is the marginal fan.  Ie, the guy who watches sometimes as opposed to a guy who is on a CFB message board for somebody else's conference in the dead of the off-season.  

IMHO, to that "marginal fan", when they hear "Ohio State vs Michigan" they think "Woody and Bo", "Ten Year War", BigTen and Rose Bowl implications, etc.  In any given year, Ohio State vs Purdue might actually be a bigger and more important game but I'm not convinced that the marginal fan knows or cares.  They just hear "Ohio State vs Purdue" and figure they'll rake the leaves this weekend because they don't need to watch the Buckeyes beat the crap out of Purdue.  In a particular year when Purdue is a better team you and I and OAM will know that and we'll be excited about Ohio State vs Purdue but I'm not convinced that the marginal fan will.  

FWIW:  I do think that this can change.  I disagreed with @Anonymous Coward 's assertion that the tiers became permanently fixed decades ago in another thread.  It was pointed out upthread that if the "tiers" had been established in 1940* Minnesota would have been a top-tier team.  I agree that the tiers can change over time, but my position is that it takes a REALLY long time for that to happen.  
Moreover, I think that it takes much longer for those "marginal fans" that matter for ratings than it does for fanatics like us.  Michigan State/Wisconsin might surpass Michigan/Nebraska and people on this board will see it happening and know about it immediately.  Marginal fans who only watch once in a while will not be so up-to-date.  Thus, I wouldn't be opposed to reconsidering those tiers at some point in the future but I would argue that it should be WAY in the future.  Basically, I wouldn't change it until it had become so permanent and well known that even marginal fans started to think of MSU/UW as being better and "more helmety" than Michigan/Nebraska.  I wouldn't change it every six years.  
*The statement upthread was actually that Minnesota would have been top-tier in 1950 but I corrected it to 1940.  Minnesota won Conference and National Championships in 1940 and 1941.  Since then they have won one NC (1960 and that is a pretty weak claim with losses to a mediocre Purdue team and in the RoseBowl) and two conference titles (1960 and 1967, both shared).  By 1950 Minnesota was already in decline but my guess is that they still had "cache" for some time after that.  

Back to thinking about the topic of going to 16...

Nothing out East moves any meter for me. None.

Out West, only some combination of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas does anything for me, and only a little bit. Texas and OU would be a big splash, much more so than the other two.

Without looking anything up (other than popn figures), just off the top of my head:
Mizzou:
Would bring decent football and BB and a state with 6.1M people.  
Kansas:
Would bring great BB, terrible football, and a state with 2.9M people.  
Oklahoma:
Would bring great football, decent BB, and a state with 3.9M people.  
Texas:
Would bring great football, decent BB, and a state with 28.3M people.  
In the East:
Virginia:
Would bring great BB, maybe ok football, and a state with 8.5M people.  
North Carolina:
Would bring great BB, decent football, and a state with 10.3M people.  
VaTech:
Would bring solid football and BB and a state with 8.5M people.  

FWIW:  I do think that this can change.  I disagreed with @Anonymous Coward 's assertion that the tiers became permanently fixed decades ago in another thread.  It was pointed out upthread that if the "tiers" had been established in 1940* Minnesota would have been a top-tier team.  I agree that the tiers can change over time, but my position is that it takes a REALLY long time for that to happen.  
Moreover, I think that it takes much longer for those "marginal fans" that matter for ratings than it does for fanatics like us.  Michigan State/Wisconsin might surpass Michigan/Nebraska and people on this board will see it happening and know about it immediately.  Marginal fans who only watch once in a while will not be so up-to-date.  Thus, I wouldn't be opposed to reconsidering those tiers at some point in the future but I would argue that it should be WAY in the future.  Basically, I wouldn't change it until it had become so permanent and well known that even marginal fans started to think of MSU/UW as being better and "more helmety" than Michigan/Nebraska.  I wouldn't change it every six years.  
*The statement upthread was actually that Minnesota would have been top-tier in 1950 but I corrected it to 1940.  Minnesota won Conference and National Championships in 1940 and 1941.  Since then they have won one NC (1960 and that is a pretty weak claim with losses to a mediocre Purdue team and in the RoseBowl) and two conference titles (1960 and 1967, both shared).  By 1950 Minnesota was already in decline but my guess is that they still had "cache" for some time after that.  

Since the observation I was making completely addresses Minnesota's absence, your rephrasing is an incomplete summary. It isn't that the tiers became locked beginning some unknown "decades ago" but that they specifically became locked sometime after 1970. I've always acknowledged that it's *possible* that this "locked tiers" claim won't be demonstrated forever. My main emphasis is that, since 1970, this has consistently been our only finding. The helmets in the 70s and 80s have perfectly carried over to become the helmets today -- not one has fallen out.