www.CollegeFootballFan.com

Lebanon, TN – Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) combined to introduce the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA) to preserve and improve intercollegiate sports by offering clear rules and regulations.  They start wheels in motion to many good and much needed legislation to prevent college sports from spiraling out of control into something other than competition for “student-athletes’ in college.  Their good intentions start in the right direction, but questions and challenges lie ahead to make this work. 

The PCSA goes for approval in front of legislators from both political parties which don’t cause too much concern.  The real challenge lies along the lines of legislators and what particular universities in their states will they stand for within them.  Will a Louisiana representative think in terms of how it will just benefit LSU, or will the rep also see the benefits equally for Louisiana University, Louisiana Tech, and UL Monroe?  The same question lies ahead for states such as Texas, California, Ohio, Michigan and Florida among others.  Constituents’ interests, current budgets and media followings differ regionally within each state.

Ultimate and worthy goals

The proposed bill calls for the protection of athletes’ rights and health, preservation of athletic competition among all sports, maximization of college athletic opportunities, and bringing stability to sports for all universities offering Division 1 programs to student-athletes. They plan to codify athletes’ rights by laws to support Olympic and Women’s sports while still allowing football and basketball programs to grow to earn more revenue to support these endeavors.  The PCSA looks to amend the Sports Broadcasting Act to enhance revenues to support these programs.

They also look to control spending, preserve NILs (Name, Image and Likeness contracts) with better controls and promote revenue sharing with Women’s and Olympic (non-revenue sports) for long-term sustainability. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri) sees college sports on the “brink of collapse” due to “unlimited transfers, out-of-control eligibility, and rising costs.”  The PCSA looks to address these for true sustainability of college sports.

Our proposal for two FBS platforms now makes even more sense with the PCSA

In this analysis, we reviewed specific topics and came up with concerns and questions.  Not that any of these issues should not be addressed. We see challenges going forward though, that all parties will not agree to.  Some issues have only been addressed in the PCSA. However, in fairness to all college students and not just student-athletes, more of the PCSA should go under even further review in lieu of high college costs other families face.

The best objective overall makes PCSA federal law so that anti-trust exemptions for FBS sports can be applied.   This terminates the many lawsuits that continuously challenge laws attempting to make everything equal for all 138 Division 1 football programs.  On the other hand, we see viable openings in this Act that will still make our proposals to divide the FBS into two that will be beneficial and conducive to the proposed PCSA.

The Goal of “More revenue” does not translate to “Equal revenue”

State laws can no longer supersede nor challenge federal PCSA laws. That should allow for fairness and the proverbial level-playing field on gridirons across the United States. On the other hand, we still see our proposal a step further in the right direction.  Large budgetary differentials will remain among 138 football programs. We don’t see the goal of “More Revenue for Every Participating School” resulting in all 138 football suddenly having equivalent budgets and revenues. The University of Texas is not going to give up its current $331.9M revenue stream. And of course, we don’t see how the University of Louisiana -Monroe will ever increase its current revenue of $18.2M to match Texas!

Below, we identify key highlights of the PCSA and follow up with questions and concerns.  Many of these I addressed in my book, Fifty Years of Tailgate Tales; The Good, the Fun and the Ugly.  Though our predictions in 2023 fell pretty much on target to what has been happening, and we made a proposal stating federal intervention will probably be necessary. It’s come to that. Now there is clarity on what the fed intends to do. We analyze their proposals and figure out the challenges and possibilities that now lie ahead.

PCSA Major Goal I: Protect Athletes

• Federal Right to Earn compensation for NILs: a “strong” national standard will be proposed to pre-empt various state laws. First of all, we don’t have an issue with compensation for all student athletes who contribute to the revenue sharing of the income.  However, a $20.5M ceiling was established to compensate all 138 teams to provide money to their players.  However, NILs go above and beyond that limit. 
• What does “strong” mean in this definition? Very vague.  Is it based on market laws of supply and demand?  Whoever offers an NIL wants to get the greatest benefit of exposure to their brand name.  They intend to give the most money to the player(s) who provide the biggest “bang for their bucks.” What FBS teams will benefit from this? Don’t want to beat this comparison to death, but that player and the NIL money will go to the likes of Texas, not UL Monroe.
• Set NIL contract requirements to protect student athletes. Key terms to be included like what the player must do under contract and how much they will be paid. Does or will this contract obligate the student to play at this school only? Or is this transferable wherever he goes? Does this prevent a player from transferring if he gets a better offer?  Read on later under next heading. Sounds like there is some conflict in PCSA law here already.  We like that fact that this will attempt to cut down on transferring and give a team players to build on. However, not sure if this holds unless contracts are done only on an annual basis. Are donors, schools and players (of course lawyers, too) all going to be on the same page regarding this?

Agent rules to protect Athletes from Exploitation

• Requires agents to register with a state. Thought this was a federal mandate. Agents will represent their clients across state lines, or is that not allowed now?  They must be certified to represent a student athlete. Agent fees capped at 5%. Prohibits fraudulent registration information. Prohibits agents from misrepresenting NILs deals to entice student athletes to enroll or transfer. Athletes can bring cases against “unscrupulous” agents to court.
• Should we assume 5% annually, over the course of the contract. Can players change agents? It states that an agent cannot misrepresent an NIL deal to entice or enroll. However, it doesn’t prevent an agent from offering a legally, advantageous deal to a player already under contract as required above. Players can bring an “unscrupulous agent” to court.  What if an athlete or member or his family contacts another agent? Can he seek a better deal than the one he is already obligated to?  Players and parents already seek to leverage what they have. It’s happened already. Can an agent take an “unscrupulous” party to court in violation of an existing contract?

Ten-year Scholarship Guarantee

• The PCSA guarantees scholarships for ten years after eligibility, so athletes can complete their degrees. Ensures they will not lose a scholarship because of injury or “athletic performance.”
• Regarding first sentence: we assume “after eligibility” means from high school graduation or when the student turns 19. New eligibility rules require a full five years from those dates, whichever comes first.  Nice, but on the other hand, these players should have more money coming out of college that when they started. They basically had steady employment and some even earned millions of dollars based on NIL contracts. 
• After five years, if they still want to pursue a degree, they should submit a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). All other students seeking to earn a degree must do this.  After at least five years of gainful employment by a school or schools and not yet earning a degree, they squandered the educational financing offered to them.  With their earnings, let them be adults and apply like anyone else with the funds they should have saved. Chalk it up to a lesson on life.
•  Regarding the second sentence pertaining to “athletic performance,” we see an issue.  What if the student enters a transfer portal and ends up no longer playing a sport.  Is that considered losing a scholarship due to athletic performance?  They took a chance and found out that no one thought their talents deserved an athletic scholarship. Do they, or don’t they, deserve more financial help from a former college? They decided to leave. Will they expect compensation from any school that refused to accept them to play for their team?

Health and Safety Protections while attending school

• D-1 schools (we assume this includes FCS programs?) provide medical coverage including second opinions and end-of-eligibility medical exams. Mandates safety standards enforced by independent (non-school affiliated) officers. They implement safety standards and report suspected violations (to NCAA H&S department, we assume). Avoids second-guessing of students’ well-being to play if injured. Schools directed to prevent mental and sexual abuses.  
• Perfectly clear from here. As written, the protection crosses all certified sports for men and women participating in all D-1 programs. Again, assuming this includes FCS as well as FBS programs.

Healthcare beyond playing careers

• Requires five years of post-eligibility medical coverage for sports-related injuries. Implements a $60M trust fund to help “schools with demonstrated financial need” to cover post eligibility medical coverage.  Emphasizes concern for long-term trauma like chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) which has come to light in recent years. Funding for this will be provided by revenues from the Sports Broadcasting Act (SBA) which anticipates more funding for college sports.
• Makes sense no doubt. However, take note that the language reinforces our proposal that based on budgets (“schools with demonstrated financial need”), that there exist distinctions among FBS schools indicating that all 138 FBS programs are not financed equally. Not for medical coverage, nor for coaching salaries, facilities, scholarships, supplies and many other costs to fund football programs on an equal basis. It acknowledges that a vast financial divide exists among all these schools. The PCSA acknowledges that right here. The anticipation of increased funding from the SBA would also benefit from our proposal to break up the FBS supporting two 24-team playoff formats for two separate national championship for FBS-I and FBS-II that we propose. It means more competitiveness, thus more media coverage, and thus more money for all.

PCSA provides Clear Eligibility and Transfer Rules to participate

• Five years of eligibility begin after high school graduation or on the student’s 19^th birthday. Exceptions for military service, religious service, pregnancy or other approved circumstances. Guarantees one transfer without the loss of a year’s eligibility. A second time? This requires a player to sit out a year except in special cases. Discontinuation of a sport, sexual assault or sexual harassment present such. However, someone’s always looking for another loophole.
• Regarding five years eligibility, where does junior college playing time or years playing D-2 or D-3 come into consideration? A 20-year-old joins a D-1 program from a lower division. Does he get five more years to play? Somewhat facetious here: what if academics force a player to make up for a failing GPA at a junior college for a year? Does that count for one of the five years at the D-1 level?  Second time?  We thought the goal was to hinder the transfer portal somewhat.
• Will one year of sitting out deter this further?  Also, will players be allowed to still transfer again if the Head Coach decides to go elsewhere? That seems a bigger issue. That decimates improving Group of Six schools as reported in our previous blog,” Why break up the FBS? SIX BIG REASONS.”   If that move causes a player to follow and make a second transfer, will he need to commit to sitting out? We figure he should, but surely this will be challenged eventually – is commitment to school or head coach?

PCSA Major Goal II: Expanding revenue to benefit schools, athletes and fans

These highlight the primary goals our two-division FBS proposal supports!

More Revenue for every Participating School

• All schools join collectively to create leverage and negotiate media rights like professional sports leagues do. This extends anti-trust protection to college sports to avert legal challenges by state laws.
• Reinforces our goal to establish FBS-I and FBS-II. FBS-I will have the initial advantage for more money. However, collectively the two entities can join together for more leverage.  If they can’t, FBS-II could gain more leverage as the 24-team playoff format consists of six lower revenue conferences. They’ll begin to draw more media interest over a short time. They must demonstrate that the competition for a national championship at this level can also create a very interested college football audience. Definitely not as big as FBS-I, but they have more room to grow if the prove themselves.

Voluntary Participation, Existing Contracts Preserved

• “No school or conference is forced to join.” Existing media contracts cannot be revoked.
•  Despite the current contracts heralded by the SEC and Big Ten (read below next heading), there may be a way to circumvent this. Our proposal builds along the lines of Power Four conferences and Group of Six Conferences separating.  The big impact of our proposal will be upon the lone FBS Independent, Notre Dame.  If all other teams vie for our eight division plans, that will dictate somewhat equalized scheduling for all. The Irish may be on the outside looking in.  Not our intention at all. With a goal to gratify 138 teams though and not just a handful, the Irish will literally have do decide if they want to play ball under these circumstances.  This voluntary participation rule was definitely developed with Notre Dame in mind. Will they still have their exclusive television contract? Probably.

PCSA Specifically Prevents a Big Ten-SEC Super League

• Of course, these conferences are the two major detractors to the PCSA altogether. The Protect College Sports Act specifically states it bans any conference that exceeded $1 billion in fiscal year 2025 from “merging with, consolidating with, or acquiring other conferences’ assets, media rights or membership.” Right now, these two combined threaten to control college football with all the power they could attain by combining their total revenue.  The fed sees this clearly.
• Already, both lobby state legislators of member states to favor their wishes.  As asked previously, can the politicians favor the big programs while shunning the needs of the lower state financed schools in their respective states? Probably can, but this favoritism would widen the differences among the upper and lower 138 members. This destroys college football for many schools, players and fans alike.

Remember our two-division FBS proposal!

• Our model proposed in our article in our blog dated June 9 entitled, “All player bets off for now: back to update the Two-championship FBS plan,” shows how we would set up eight divisions of eight teams each.  We prioritize history and geography as primary guidelines assimilating the various divisions.  Every two years after each team has completed the home and home series, we review and determine if the four of the lowest FBS-I schools have raised their level of play in FBS-II and can replace four teams with the lowest records during the two previous years in FBS-I.
• In Notre Dame’s case, in division play they’d face the first two years would theoretically include Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Michigan, Northwestern, Ohio State, and Wisconsin.  Their other five games would be against teams from the seven other divisions. All would be ranked from first to eighth and selected by some pre-determined algorithm. An amendment to be considered proposes for teams to agree on maintaining some traditional rivalries.  Notre Dame could commit to playing USC and Navy annually, for instance, if approved.  Same goes for all other schools, but we can cross that bridge if we ever come to it. That’s not so bad, is it? All those division foes play ND traditionally or within driving distance for fans near campus and alumni in nearby states.

A move back to Regionalism

• Protects traditional rivalries on schedules to assure fans still see their team play their arch-rivals.
• Our Two-championship system not only assures this.  Look it over in the previously-mentioned article. This even goes beyond that.  It allows many division away games to be attended by visiting fans.  It also helps in recruiting local athletes who want to play in front of local family and friends as often as possible. Such schedules create effective recruiting tools.

PCSA Prohibits Mid-season Coaching transitions

• Precludes head coaches and other staff members from leaving before the season for their current team concludes, potentially into a bowl or CFP season, to take over another FBS program during the same season. They cannot get involved in recruiting, roster management, coaching hires, NIL offerings, or game plan functions until the season comes to a close the day after the College Football Playoff Championship game.    
• Agreed, but if a coach like James Franklin gets canned in mid-season, they need to clarify if the same rule applies. Would it be fair for Virginia Tech in this case or any other school to get an early jump into the next season. Also, we’d like to see ridiculous buy-out contracts of released coaches addressed. 
• Who else can get canned for not meeting employer expectations and receive tens of millions of dollars?  We even question that with corporate CEOs. This needs to be capped at some point. Granted these are vital positions they fill at universities, but these rewards for not meeting standards are not viable. The argument is this is how schools attract the best coaching talent. If it doesn’t work out that way though, why should the inefficient profit so highly? They fell short of targeted expectations. Send them away with a package they can survive on until their next stop. Don’t let them hold a college football program for ransom.

Read our Great History of Games among our First 42 Seasons!

If you haven’t already, please click on the title about this life-long adventure: Fifty Years of Tailgate Tales: The Good, the Fun, and the Ugly on Amazon.com. Among 740 college games attended to date now, we’ve seen all 136 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) teams play in person at least once. By the way, in case you aren’t aware, North Dakota State and Sacramento State join the FBS this season. “Fifty Years” tells our story of how we got to attend our first 652 games!

Read the reviews on the book page and get your copy today. If you’re trying to follow NILs and transfer portals, read what we predicted in 2023 and more. Hopefully, you’ll understand how much we love this sport and what we propose for it to survive successfully. In addition, we offered solutions to issues occurring that we anticipated when we wrote this book. Please buy your copy today, enjoy it, and read about the many great memories captured. Maybe these will bring back some of the same memories you encountered when we did!

Edited and written by Stephen J. Koreivo, member of Football Writers Association of America (FWAA) and Author of “Fifty Years of Tailgate Tales: The Good, the Fun and the Ugly.”

Lebanon, TN – In this proposal, 48 teams, not 24, compete for two separate championships. Why not? Right now, 137 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) programs compete for one national championship.  How many NFL teams compete for the Super Bowl? Only 32. And can or do all 137 college football teams compete at the same high level with equally, talented, motivated and well-coached players at the same high level?  Evidently, no!

Consider this: do the top 137 professional baseball teams in North America compromised of players from all over the world compete at the same level? Of course not. Do the New York Yankees and Los Angelas Dodgers compete for the same national championship against the Biloxi Shuckers of Double A or the Lansing Lugnuts of High A Minor League baseball? They don’t. However, if you total all the professional baseball teams from the top of the majors to the depths of their farm systems, you see how talent is dispersed from top teams down to the bottom. In this, don’t consider the experience factor. Just realize all are qualified to be paid to play the game professionally.

College Football Talent Disbursement

So why should fans accept the standards of Alabama and Ohio State to compete against perennial strugglers like UMASS and UL Monroe for a common national championship? Annually, teams like Georgia, Penn State and Iowa have the Minutemen to visit. UMASS goes for a big check. The hosts anticipate a highly attainable win.  The past few years, ULM visited Alabama (twice), Texas (twice) and Ole Miss. You know who won. Who do you think would win 99 (or more) out of one hundred meetings if this continues into the next century?  

The point? Why bother? That’s not what athletic competition is supposed to be about. No doubt about it now, it’s only about money. Buy a victory to make more money. One more win looks good on paper than does one more loss. Instead of paying relatively big bucks (from programs with millions) to invite a willing lamb to a slaughter, they should be required instead to compete with teams that have more comparable budgets with a better chance to pull an upset.

With the most money attaining top talent, the best play the best

Compete for better wins to recruit the best players to generate even more income. From this college fan who’s attended 740 college football games since 1979, I find the most entertaining games, in person or on the big screen, come between two equally “competitive” teams, not meaning only the “best of the best.”  Teams playing among others in the lower echelon of the existing 137 FBS programs offer entertaining games as well.

Rather than schedule an expected, non-competitive anticlimactic blow-out, why can’t we demand games between teams with comparable talent as the standard? If anyone’s best reason is to help fund the lesser teams’ budgets, donate money. Are these truly donations with best intentions? Instead, designate it from a contest that raises more revenue by playing a more competitive opponent. Read on!

Not only can this and should this be done, but the 24-team College Football Playoff (CFP) option improves to become a more competitive and profitable football festival. On top of that, for college football fans, this proposal will double football pleasure with two separate and potentially equal college football championships. Why not?

Begin with the Money, Like it or Not: for a Successful 24-Team CFP Format

Every Head Coach, Athletic Director, and University President insists their program needs more money to support its football program. If monetary demands for Name, Image and Likeness (NILs), already out of control, remain as they are, they become a growing focus. Also consider top coaching salaries, potential coaching buyouts, football facility infrastructure, growing rosters, health care costs and other financial needs to support a successful FBS program. So, how can 137 existing FBS college football programs rake in the necessary amount of money to fund their programs? Will they share equally?  They don’t now…

Let me start this controversy to make the 24-team CFP Format Work

Not only with pleasure, but going forward I’ll propose plans to make college football better than ever. I’ll break this down with changes that football fans and its leadership might not like at first glance. However, consider ALL the positive results in the end if implemented. 

I consider myself at traditionalist when it comes to college football. Entering my 47th season of attending a full slate of games, I’ve struggled with many of the recent changes. However, for my love of the competition displayed on the playing field, I’ve rolled with the punches. I want to see this game thrive and not fail. I hope my changes will improve the game. I’m even more intent to bring the sport more in line with what traditionalists like me would like to resurrect.

Two FBS Divisions – Two Championships

Of 137 FBS college football teams, only one wins a championship. In the NFL, one wins among 32 teams. In major League Baseball, one among 30 wins The World Series. Thus far among 137 functioning college football programs, in reality only four, twelve, now possibly 16 or possibly 24 get to compete for a national championship. All depends on pending changes to the current format of 12.  Using a budgetary cut-off, I propose to take 64 FBS programs with the highest football budgets (revenues) in the NCAA and separate them from the other 73 programs (subject to change). Call the high budgets group for comparative purposes, “FBS-I”. The remaining teams form “FBS-II.”

Of the wealthiest 64, create eight conferences of eight teams each. Arrange these conferences based on geographic and historic familiarity. During the regular season, currently Weeks 0-13, each team will play all seven conference members and five teams from among their other seven respective FBS conferences.  Schedules can be slated on a rotating basis annually. Doesn’t have to be, but just a suggestion.  No more picking weakest options perennially to gain an advantage in the final win column. On the other hand, rivalries can be contracted long-term. For instance, Army-Navy-Air Force games for the Commander-in-Chief Trophy; revitalizing Notre Dame vs. USC; Washington vs. Washington State; or any other traditional rivalries lost on the recent conference realignments.    All game results will count in the final standings of each conference.

Play Games with Somebody Your Own Size!

No more scheduling “Group of Six” foes nor Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) teams.  Only FBS-I teams line up on all FBS-I schedules. Only FBS-II teams play on all FBS-II schedules.  From Week 0-13 as set up now, every team plays 12 games and gets two bye weeks. On Week 14, instead of Week 15, Army and Navy play in their traditional regular season finale. All 135 remaining teams have a bye to prep for potential post-season contests. 

Week 15: The New and Exciting Tie-Breaker Week

Instead of Conference Championships, Week 15 determines the final top three teams from each conference of both FBS-I and FBS-II to determine their 24-team playoff entrants. Remember, 73 other programs (at least for now) compete in FBS-II.  Same schedule format. Same weekly 0-13 schedule, two byes and same goal – 24 teams in the FBS-II playoff. When the regular season ends, among all 16 conferences, there will be ties for first, second and third place. Tie-breaker Week pits all teams in games playing for the three top positions, only if and when necessary. If any or all of these standings have clearly been determined in the final regular season standings, these teams get byes on Week 15.

Among 16 different conferences, play-in games offer excitement all weekend. TV networks will gladly feature critical games for college football fandom. Think of the first Thursday of the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Multiple networks can broadcast games at different kick-off times so fans can catch the best finishes throughout the day.

2025: A Timing example

These games, if slated for the previous 2025 calendar would have been played on the weekend of December 11-12 when ArmyNavy weekend was played.  Now, that gets moved up a week to December 5. After Tie-breaker Week, the First Round opens on Week 16.  Like the current FCS play-off schedule featuring 24 teams, the top eight in this model, all eight conference winners in both the FBS-I and in FBS-II, each receive a bye.  The eight first round games will be played among the second and third place finishers of all eight conferences. Pairings can be based on records, head-to-head results from regular season competition, teams not yet played from other conferences, “official polls” if any still exist, computer rankings which can generally be ignored, either a human or robotic selection committee, or whatever combination or criteria the NCAA decides on.

Much controversy regarding bracketing gets nullified because the choices for the top three seeds have already been established. The conference selections end up with a clear-cut number one, two and three for each after Tie-breaker Week to determine the 24 playoff teams. The media can still stir controversy to figure or debate who gets paired with whom.  It wouldn’t be a college sport without pundits providing their “expertise” for lively televised discussions.

Competitive Games Weekly right up into Two Grand Finales!

Week 17 (last season – December 25-26) welcomes the Second Round. Week 18 (three days including New Year’s Eve) brings Quarterfinal games between the eight surviving teams from the original 24. Traditional Holiday Bowl traditions continue with best teams each year vying for national championships.  Week 19 offers the two Semi-final games for FBS-I and FBS-II. On Week 20 (January 17 a year ago), the 24-team CFP format comes to a head with two national championship games. 

Play-off between those two? No. It’s already been established that the Big Money FBS-I programs retain a significant advantage over FBS-II.  Would the FCS champ play the winner of that? Of course not.   Or possibly D-2 play against D-3? No. Never have, never should. From the beginning, these are all distinct levels of college football talent that are differentiated primarily by monetary budgets.

Side Benefits from the 24-team CFP Format

The timing of the final games played in mid-January fall in line before the two-week window opening the transfer portal, like it or not.  Just so happens to be the way it is right now. That’s an article to address in a totally different and more difficult discussion.

How about opt-outs for post-season play?  The beauty of this offers a tremendous side-benefit. If 48 college football programs each get a shot to enter playoffs for a national championship, how many true teammates are going to say, “No, I’m opting out. I’m not interested in winning a national championship.”  Some teammate! He exposes his true colors for future opportunities.

Media Revenue for Play-off teams and beyond

To be fair to all competitors in my proposed 24-team CFP formats, all games will have to be played only on Friday nights or Saturdays. Winners need a week to prep for their next opponent. Television networks will still be looking to fill weekday prime-time programming voids. Fans will be still scrolling for games all those other evenings when there’s little more among hundreds of other media options to watch something of interest.

Other teams with decent records at least hovering at .500 or better will still be willing to consider playing a game in this age where “everybody gets a trophy.” After the season, each program needs to commit if it wants to participate in an available post-season game. In fact, even if they have no wins. They can announce their interest after their regular season ends outside the top three in their conference.

Next, a designated committee will analyze the records to schedule post-season games. Basically, seven-game winners play seven game winners, six-game winners play six- game winners; five vs. five, etc., etc. Flip a coin to determine home team if there is not a pre-determined site for a televised game. Let the Networks bid for the games they want to fill time slots for pre-contracted sponsors.  “0-12 State plays 0-12 Tech in the “‘Tidy Consolation Game’ sponsored by the Tidy Bowl Man!”

Another proposed, but hopefully non-controversial change

As brought to light in that last sentence, not every post season game should be considered a “bowl game.” Instead, call them “Consolation games.” I abhor hearing TV guys tell us that this team or that “plays nine bowl teams from last year on this year’s schedule.” In this proposal, a CFP bid represents an award to play for a national championship. These other teams get the privilege to practice as do their future opponents to improve and to play another game – in front of whatever loyal fans they still have and on television as a “consolation” prize.  It shouldn’t be considered an award for an outstanding season. Because it’s not among 64 or 73 other teams in the same division!

The final impacts to ponder for the 24-team CFP Format

In my proposal, 48 current FBS programs get to play for one of two national championships. Fans and TV networks can enjoy more competitive games throughout the regular season.  Many competitive post-season games will entertain will be played with purpose than ever before. Two national champions get crowned – FBS-I and FBS-II. Two totally different levels of competition get rewarded. The three best teams from 16 different yet competitive conferences enter the play-offs. Opt-outs should minimize.

December playoff games lead to relatively great bowl line-ups on New Year’s. The Semi-finals and Finals play to the end by mid-January. The transfer portal opens and closes for two weeks after the season. Maybe there will be less movement. Maybe the rules will change, or maybe players will want to stick with their current team for another shot to win it all.  Of course, it depends on whether other programs can entice them with more money.

Consolation, post-season games still get played on weekday nights in December and January for Networks and fans both looking to fill in TV viewing with more college football. More money for more teams?  That depends on distribution between FBS-I and FBS-II teams as two separate entities. In the future, maybe there would be more lucrative opportunities offered to the latter through competitive broadcast rights.

740 Games Attended and Still Counting!

Since this is currently the way college football is going – primarily for the money – again, like it or not. However, this proposal addresses a lot of this. As a fan who’s already attended 740 games in person and counting, I want to see this great pastime survive, and not just for this one particular reason.  

Read our Great History of Games among our First 42 Seasons!

Click on the title about this life-long adventure: Fifty Years of Tailgate Tales: The Good, the Fun, and the Ugly on Amazon.com. Among 740 college games attended to date now, we’ve seen all 136 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) teams play in person at least once. This tells our story of how we got up to the first 652!

Read the reviews on the book page and get your copy today. If you’re trying to follow NILs and transfer portals, read what we predicted in 2023 and more. Hopefully, you’ll understand how much we love this sport and want we propose these changes for it to survive successfully. In addition, we offered solutions to issues occurring that we anticipated when we wrote this book. Please buy your copy today, enjoy it, and read about the many great memories captured. Maybe these will bring back some of the same memories you encountered when we did!

Edited and written by Stephen J. Koreivo, member of Football Writers Association of America (FWAA) and Author of “Fifty Years of Tailgate Tales: The Good, the Fun and the Ugly.”