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

Well in what I proposed each team would have six "every-year" rivals.  The oddity of it is that they aren't a group of seven because the pods and groups overlap.  
Nebraska, in my proposal, would have three "geographic" every-year rivals (IA, UW, MN) and three "helmet" every-year rivals (M, PSU, tOSU).  

well, if Nebraska would play Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesoota, Michigan, Penn St., & tOSU every season for the next 20 seasons I would love it.
I would guess ESPN/ABC & the BTN would also love it.
Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana or any other conference teams could be rotated into the schedule to make up the additional 3 games.

The entire original ACC was a pretty awful FB conference aside from maybe Clemson.

Yeah, Clemson had become the big, bad bully of the ACC in the 80s, and up until FSU joined the conference.  

Well in what I proposed each team would have six "every-year" rivals.  The oddity of it is that they aren't a group of seven because the pods and groups overlap.  
Nebraska, in my proposal, would have three "geographic" every-year rivals (IA, UW, MN) and three "helmet" every-year rivals (M, PSU, tOSU).  

Is this idea sort of creating rungs or tiers within the conference?  If not, correct me.
If so, I thought the goal was a uniform setup with everyone on equal footing (what we DON'T have, presently).  At the start of the season, don't we want everyone to have an equal chance to earn their way into a playoff/NCG?

Of course it creates tiers. 

The whole premise of the thread is to move away from CFB egalitarianism. Not to chase after it. 

Yes to Governing Body. H3LL NO to AAU being it.

I feel the safest, best approach would be to blow the NCAA up and restart it. Just get rid of the 120 years of baggage most of which isn't applicable anymore, and start over. 

It is? Maybe to a degree, when it comes to the P5 separating itself from the rest, but within?

Some schools are better than others in football. Some schools are better than others in school. It's a wide spectrum. Lines can be drawn, for sure.

It would be interesting to start a new athletic association for football, through the AAU or some such.

There needs to be a governing body.

I thought the whole point of P5 vs Other 5 was to trace over the imaginary line with an actual line.  And once those 2 entities were separated in real life, to set up P5 schools in a way that all are on an even playing field.  Not in terms of history or money or any of that, but in terms of the number and height of the hurdles required to bypass in order to win the national championship.
A sort of socialist framework/setup in which there was no longer a beauty contest, media to influence, coaches to influence, or any of that.
4 conferences of 16 teams each in a 4x4 pod setup does this.  The team with the best record in each conference enters the 4-team playoff.  Or you could pair up each pod into divisions and the winners of each play a CCG, then onto the playoff.  The point is, Wake Forest would have the exact same outline to a MNC as Texas.
No, Wake Forest is not on the same plane as Texas, but to give them the same opportunity - that's the difference worthy of all of this mucking about to get from where we are now to where would could get to there.  If Wake Forest is going to be in the same group as Texas, USC, or Ohio St - why bother unless we remove the unnecessary obstacles they now face?  Why differentiate between P5 and Other 5 and FCS and NAIA?  

If Wake Forest has an easier schedule than Texas, then that gives them an easier path to the NC. 

If Texas wants to annually take on a more difficult path to the NC in order to maintain some strong rivalries, then that can only help the little guy.