Not me. I think its a mistake. If Nebraska can't break through, I'm not sure how North Dakota can.

Told ya. Huge changes are coming. Hold onto you butts!

There are other teams missing as well. Consider it a rough breakdown. As for how the league would look and playoffs, I could do another prompt. The 75 teams are meant to display how many FBS teams will not be in the top tier league in the future and how the overall construction (as you have pointed out) will need to be fixed.

There is going to be a ton of movement with FCS and FBS teams. This is why I think the smart play is to just sit back and let the dominos fall. Current conferences might just dissolve or merge with other conferences. Look at SACST, they are in the MAC, but what if the MAC doesn't exist in a couple years or the MAC stays together but the conference decides to become FCS due to $$$.

Good post. I played around with AI to come up with teams which would comprise the top 40 football schools. And then asked to provide a list of all the schools in the FBS that did not make the top 40. I then asked it to make a league out of the rest of the FBS schools not in the top 40 and this is what it came up with:

The “Power 40” Super League
SEC Core (10)

University of Alabama

University of Georgia

Louisiana State University

University of Florida

University of Tennessee

Auburn University

Texas A&M University

University of Texas at Austin

University of Oklahoma

University of Mississippi

(Mississippi gets the nod over some others due to consistent competitiveness + SEC value.)

Big Ten Core (9)

Ohio State University

University of Michigan

Pennsylvania State University

University of Southern California

University of Oregon

University of Washington

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Michigan State University

University of Nebraska–Lincoln

ACC Power Brands (6)

Clemson University

Florida State University

University of Miami

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Virginia Tech

University of Notre Dame

Big 12 Survivors (6)

University of Texas at Austin (already counted — skip duplicate)

Replacing duplicate:

Baylor University

Texas Christian University

Oklahoma State University

Kansas State University

Iowa State University

National Brands / Independents (5)

Brigham Young University

University of Utah

University of Pittsburgh

Stanford University

Duke University

Final 5 Spots (TV Market + Legacy Value)

University of Arkansas

University of South Carolina

University of California, Los Angeles

University of Arizona

Arizona State University

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ break ++++++++++++++++

Remaining FBS Schools (Not in Power 40)
American Athletic Conference Core

University of Memphis

University of South Florida

East Carolina University

Tulane University

University of Tulsa

Temple University

Rice University

University of Texas at San Antonio

University of North Texas

Florida Atlantic University

University of Alabama at Birmingham

United States Naval Academy

Mountain West Core

Boise State University

Fresno State

San Diego State University

Colorado State University

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

University of Nevada, Reno

University of New Mexico

University of Wyoming

Utah State University

Air Force Academy

Sun Belt Core

Appalachian State University

Coastal Carolina University

Georgia Southern University

Georgia State University

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

University of South Alabama

James Madison University

Marshall University

Old Dominion University

Arkansas State University

Texas State University

MAC

University of Toledo

Miami University

Northern Illinois University

Western Michigan University

Central Michigan University

Eastern Michigan University

Bowling Green State University

Kent State University

Ball State University

Ohio University

University at Buffalo

University of Akron

Conference USA Remnants

Liberty University

Western Kentucky University

Middle Tennessee State University

Louisiana Tech University

Sam Houston State University

Jacksonville State University

New Mexico State University

Florida International University

Kennesaw State University

University of Texas at El Paso

The list of FBS teams that will not make the top super league is around 75 teams. 75!!! Let that sink in. Now look at the Mountain West Conference. Do you see that most of the schools are not in the top 40? So if we jump to the MWC, are you sure we are moving up, or are we just moving sideways and paying more money for the opportunity? We lose the chance to win a national championship and will be perineal FBS punching bags. I'm not sure I want to be Cal to be honest. I'd rather stay FCS and win championships.

Why were they robbed? You know why. It's because Texas and college football can pack a Rose Bowl stadium and impact the local economy far greater than Stanford ever could. Stanford lost the Rose Bowl and multiple Heisman's because the national narrative is Stanford is a niche school. It is not a serious football player and never will be.

Cool. I disagree with your assessment, but feel free to invest as you see fit. I wish you much success.

Yes, Stanford University has a financial war chest most universities could only dream about. But it also has a structural issue that rarely gets discussed.

The number is 7,500 — roughly the size of Stanford’s undergraduate population. That’s it. For a globally recognized institution located in the heart of the Bay Area, that’s a very small base. And of those 7,500 students, only about 30–40% are from California.

So you have an elite California university where less than half the undergraduates are even from the state. That raises a fair question: how does the local population rally around a school that doesn’t meaningfully represent them?

Often, they don’t.

It helps explain why you can attend a Stanford football game without much difficulty or expense. I know — I grew up in Saratoga and went to games regularly. The community presence just isn’t overwhelming. Over time, that kind of limited organic support can matter. Schools like Harvard University, Yale University, and Princeton University operate similarly — elite academics, smaller undergraduate bases, limited local mass-market sports culture. That’s part of why they compete at the FCS level rather than FBS.

Now look at University of California, Berkeley — Cal. Different scale, different dynamic.

Cal has about 33,000 undergraduates, and roughly 85% are from California. On paper, that’s much more representative of the state. Similar in some ways to University of California, Davis in terms of strong in-state presence.

But Cal has another barrier: admissions selectivity. For the average California high school student, the odds of attending Berkeley are extremely small — only a few percent of the graduating class statewide will enroll there in any given year. That level of competitiveness narrows the pipeline. You tend to see more multigenerational Berkeley families — which is great — but for the broader public, access feels limited.

And that’s the tension.

Both Stanford and Cal embrace elite academic identities. That prestige has tremendous value. But when student bodies are either small in size (Stanford) or highly selective and concentrated (Cal), broad community representation can shrink. And when fewer families see themselves reflected on campus, the question becomes:

If the students don’t widely represent the surrounding community, where does large-scale, sustained fan support come from?

That’s the fundamental challenge.

2004 was 20 years ago. The Tedford years were fun.

2015 last conf championship. Stanford has a noble history but it never really wins anything. Last national championship 1940.

This is my point, we vastly overrate Stanford and Cal when it comes to football. They are great schools but nothing spectacular.

it really comes down to which teams get the most eyeballs. The only reason we think of Minnesota or Mississippi as top teams is because they historically played against top teams. Let’s play around with creating a top league. Can you fill the top league of 40 teams?

what did they win?

As the economy continues to slide into a recession, you will start to see schools and businesses closing their wallets. There will be money for Alabama, USC, tOSU, etc. in the top tier level but things will get tight below this tier. Think about it, would you rather pay for Alabama vs Texas or Minnesota vs Vanderbilt?

not really. I’m talking from a national standpoint Stanford and Cal are not valued very much in football. They are similar to Virginia and Duke, both of which will also be regulated. It’s the reason they had to beg the ACC to take them. This arrangement is a temp deal till the next tv negotiations come around. When that happens they will be given a pie, do you think they want smaller slices or larger ones? That’s when you will se the SEC, BIG, ACC etc start trimming the fat. Money is the bottom line and traveling to the west coast to play conference games is already getting too expensive.

oh I think Stanford, Cal, USC, and UCLA will all be back in a regional area within 10 years. In the case of Cal and Stanford, I think they will be looking for a new home by 2030.

There is a reason SacSt was so desperate to join FBS. They are taking the gamble that once the new TV deals are negotiated there will be new tiers of football. They think being an FBS gets them into an upper league. It’s a gamble but I think they are wrong.

Once this super league gets established only a select few will be invited (maybe 45?). Then the jockeying for the next league will take place and this is where everything gets turned upside down.

Tier 1: super league.
Tier 2: FBS
Tier 3: FCS
Tier 4: D2/D3

Let’s look at some schools inside FBS programs.

Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Stanford, Cal, Rutgers, Rice, Minnesota, UConn…do you see any of these teams winning the national championship in your lifetime? What do they add for football? Not much really. That is why you are going to see conferences start cutting fat.

They are going to create a super league of around 45 teams and break them into divisions similar to the NFL. Those schools who are not good enough to be tier 1 will be pushed to tier 2 or 3.

When this happens all the history of college football will change. A lot of schools are going to be left scrambling to find a conference (Stanford and Cal) and this is when Davis makes their move.

I mean think about it, let’s say we moved to MWC next year. Once the Tiers get established the MWC might just be another FCS league in time. If you are not in the top tier you are essentially an FCS team again. But this isn’t a bad thing.

I think there is a huge market for championship playoff football regardless of tier. Could you imagine being Stanford and actually getting a legit shot to win the championship? Same with Cal, Rice, Northwestern, etc. schools that have never come close to winning a championship now actually have a shot. I think this will rejuvenate college football as new conferences are made and new rivalries are formed.

Be patient. This is not the time to make any big moves. Our opportunity is coming.

I've always said UC Davis and SACST should support each other during this transition. Think of the region not just the school. Its a natural rival that fits perfect against Cal vs Stanford, UCLA vs USC...

You guys think I'm crazy but I'm telling you a California Conference is the optimal solution for college football in the state. The conference would consist of only California schools - this important as the conference would be tied to our economy and state law, this could be very beneficial for tv, digital, and other.

I'd love to see some new programs built: How about a UC Merced? or UC San Diego? Or Long Beach St?

I just think we forget sometimes how truly big we are as a state. 40 million people live here and we have what 9 football schools? That is just crazy to me.

I say "Keep it Californian! Keep our kids home!"

That is the big question. Where is the money going to come from?

We are on the same page in regards to the future of UC Davis football. Where we differ is the money part.

If you can provide the solution for funding all of this change, I'm sure everyone will be on board. The honest fact is, We.....are....not....ready. We aren't. Maybe in a couple years things might change, but for the near future, the move to FBS is in my opinion 50/50 at best.

I'm gonna be a bit harsh but it needs to be said:

1. The plan under the current renovation is to be complete within 5 years. Adding addition seating to that plan to increase capacity doesn't seem impossible. - Have you ever managed a construction project? Do you know the costs associated with building, especially in California? The zoning and environmental impacts that have to be done? Project overruns? Labor shortages? etc. Let's pretend the goal is for 2028, you think the stadium can do all this in 24 months? Not happening.


2. I think this whole changing this is possible, but its all guessing at the moment. I still think positioning ourselves in that lower FBS bracket instead of FCS before those hypothetical changes happen is a good idea. NDSU moved to the MW after the media deal was completed.

What is the benefit of paying millions dollars to join a conference you are not even sure will exist in 2030? What economic benefit does being grouped with the Ball ST, Reno, etc. have prior to the next TV deals? There is none. Whether this happens in 2029 or 2039 there is no incentive to rush playing FBS football. NDSU is a 10 time national champion with a national reputation and a state support, Davis is not even close to that. To compare NDSU to UC Davis is like comparing apples to oranges. NDSU is now on the hook for some serious $$$. That bill isn't going away, they will have to pay a lot of money.

You need to show how UC Davis can make more money moving to FBS vs just adding expenses.

3. I think the third one is more complicated, but I think joining the conference that all our other sports are in, continuing to compete in a regional conference like the MW, and increased exposure make it worth it, especially considering the MW schools we have close by.

I get it. You want to UC Davis on ESPN and playing bigger schools for the pure entertainment of it, but that is not how life works. Davis is not a big time sports school. It never was and it will never be. Davis at its core is a research university. Athletics are a byproduct of the university. That is it.

I want you to go to campus and go stand on our old field by Hickey Gym. Go look at that area. That was the site of UC Davis football for decades. I can't tell you the amount of time my butt was numb from sitting in those metal bleaches. The current stadium didn't come about till 2007. That means in 20 years we have gone form a DII school to people wanting Davis to join the MWC. That is a pretty big move already and you want us to move even faster? For what?

Here is what you have to understand. Everything costs money. A lot of money. I want you to start putting a price tag on ever wish you want to happen for UC Davis.

Example: "I want to move to the MWC by 2028." Breakdown how much that will cost and where you are going to get the money do make it happen. This will help you better understand the effort needed to move to the FBS.

yeah that isn't happening. Davis isn't close to moving up before 2030 at the earliest if at all. Why?

1. Stadium is not ready for an FBS invite (this will take years to complete. Funding, construction, etc.)
2. TV deals are set for 2029. The FBS as we know it will change from how we know it. Nobody knows what happens to the current FCS teams or the lower FBS teams in the new TV deals.
3. Economic benefit: Cost of moving to FBS has to show a positive net income vs an added expenditure. What is the point of moving up to FBS if it costs the university $5M in expenditures?

If you want an honest timeline, look more for a 2030-2040 timeframe.

And what is your current time frame?