Maybe I read it too fast, and missed the conference doing the tv deal. I just got the impression he wanted to (ucla) makes their own schedule of teams they wanted. Not so much having to play B1G schools. Same with everyone else. I just don’t want to see schools (I won’t isolate anyone particular) in scheduling 2 games against a normally ranked opponent and 10 games against teams they should have no problem beating. So the finish with a 12-0, 11-1 record so they can make the playoffs.
For the record, Purdue does = Wake Forest
I made the inference myself (Kelly did not say that explicitly, at least not in the article) that there would be some formal oversight over the structure he is suggesting, a Commissioner (or a Committee due to the sheer size) perhaps. There would have to be, I believe. In that role, the Comm. would be responsible for, among other things, equity across the great collection of Independents. A smarter, more sensible, and more agile NCAA just for football, maybe. To that end, they would need to greatly discourage such scheduling, as the entire point in this structure would be to create more consistently interesting match-ups in which a couple of quality losses does not take away from playoff chances, but an inordinately low strength of schedule would, even at 11-1, e.g. The current, or very recent past structure, tended to do just that to some degree.
So if UCLA wants to schedule 10 "G5" teams to ensure at least a 10-2 record, they would be free to do so, and then they could enjoy a trip to the Birds Eye Frozen Peas Bowl in Frostbite Falls MN and watch the playoffs on TV.
My point (which I see you understood) about comparing Purdue and Wake is that with a new overarching structure of all Independents, divided into say 65 "P5" legacy teams and 68 "G5" legacy is that I'd rather see us play Wake than Purdue at their current levels of competitiveness, generating more interest in that 2nd quality tier of games that will occur throughout a season.
And with a 12 game regular season, there are naturally going to be some mismatches and some money games on the schedule. We want all 133 teams to have full schedules, and we probably want the Top Tier of those 65 teams playing only 1A/FBS schools, and nothing at the 1AA/FCS level. The old G5s would certainly still schedule down a step, though.
Let's say, for arguments sake, any given team in the Top 20 today has maybe 6 to 7 sorta-to-really interesting, tough games, primarily in conference (1st and 2nd tier), and 5 to 6 lower tier games (OOC, bottom of conference, ala UMass, Rutgres, whoever). With the expanded playoffs and no conference affiliation to dictate scheduling, the Penn States of the world will be encouraged to play more Auburns and North Carolinas and fewer San Jose States and Bowling Greens, e.g. Then we'd be looking at maybe 8 to 9 sorta-to-really interesting match-ups, and we know that a strong showing of 10-2, with a few good quality wins and a couple of quality losses, still gets us into the playoffs.
I remember that barely 35+ years ago, there were a lot of Independent major schools in NCAA football, spread all across the country. They each figured out how to put together a full schedule, understanding that better intersectional match-ups meant more TV opportunities (after 1982), meant that fans had more interest overall and would want to see how these Independents did against the various conferences in bowls and in upcoming seasons.
Anyway, I like that Kelly and others are thinking outside the box to drive home some important points about where the torrid love affair with more and more money is leading us. Do we ever reach a tipping point where the fans eventually lose enough interest that viewership drops and the revenues the media cos. take in can no longer justify the contracts? TBD, I guess.
