What is better than two running backs? How about your first 7 picks going to RB, then you can fill out your roster with whoever is left. I think this is taking the strategy that others are using and maximizing it to its full potential. Using ESPN's ADP data, your draft could look like:

1. Christian McCaffrey
2. Chase Brown
3. Breece Hall
4. Quinshon Judkins
5. David Montgomery
6. Jonathon Brooks
7. Rhamondre Stevenson

I mean, WR, QB, and TE are very deep this year. I think grabbing Brandon Aubrey will allow you to win the kicker battle every week. Couple that with the 7 RB start, and I think this will produce many league champions.

Which one would you guys take?

I think when my first round pick comes around, 2 out of 3 of these guys could be there. I think Cook is a safer bet, on a really good offense, and could see an up take on targets in the pass game. I think Taylor is a stud, South Jersey boy! He was unbelievable when Daniel Jones was healthy. I think CMC has the highest ceiling, but he is the most likely to get hurt too.

I have the 8th pick in my 10 team ESPN default rules home league. I am looking to run a two RB start to kick off my draft. My first pick will be CMC, or Taylor if they fall. Otherwise, I am picking Cook. For my second RB, I am deciding between Brown or Jeanty. I think Brown is a safer bet, but Jeanty's upside seems very high. The Raiders have tried to put together a better line for Jeanty, and he will get the volume. However, the Bengals have the better offense, and Brown will have no problem getting the volume.

I have the 8th pick in my 10 team ESPN default rules home league. I am looking to run a two RB start to kick off my draft. My first pick will be CMC, or Taylor if they fall. Otherwise, I am picking Cook. For my second RB, I am deciding between Brown or Jeanty. I think Brown is a safer bet, but Jeanty's upside seems very high. The Raiders have tried to put together a better line for Jeanty, and he will get the volume. However, the Bengals have the better offense, and Brown will have no problem getting the volume.

This might go over well and open up an interesting discussion on the subreddit, or it will turn into a toxic cesspool below. Hopefully, it is the first.

I want to discuss the talk around "Woke 1.0" from the point of view of a 24 year old, white passing guy (I am 1/4 Hispanic, but if you saw me you would say white), and look at how it was important in shaping Gen Z men, especially white men, to be more right leaning than Millennials or Gen X.

Look at the numbers: in the 2008 election, 62% of men 18-29 voted Democrat per Pew Research. In the 2024 election, 49% of men 18-29 voted Republican per The Civics Center. That is a 13 point swing.

Firstly, the idea that "Woke 1.0" started during COVID is wrong. I get that AOC really brought the term to the mainstream, and she was referring to tweets about defunding the police. However, Woke 1.0 actually peaked around 2016. This was the time period of Buzzfeed posting things like "22 reasons why straight white boys are actually THE WORST" while Ben Shapiro was going viral for "owning the libs!"

During this time period, all over social media, young white men were often told they were the problem based solely on their skin tone and gender, whether they actually came from privilege or not. The identity politics of the time really drove thousands of young men to vote right.

People do not always vote for what would theoretically be best for them. A 24 year old union ironworker from Jersey will vote Red because of what he perceived the Democratic Party stood for when he was growing up, the stereotype of the liberal arts graduate who looked down upon a white, blue collar worker.

This subreddit hates the idea of "Democrats trying to appeal to Republicans." But if you take a step back from the two party system, you will see that the Democrats need to reach out to that 24 year old ironworker. He might have voted for Trump, but he is not really MAGA and not at all a Republican.

That wouldn't actually be super hard, either. Politicians need to leave behind unpopular political ideas and identity politics. If they do, people within the movement will see a benefit for the things they actually care about.

Firstly, when I say "unpopular ideas," I mean fringe concepts that will just never get passed to begin with, like open borders, defunding the police, and getting rid of Thanksgiving. Conversely, I think things like universal healthcare, even though it's a traditional left wing idea, is a policy many will get behind if the right person goes about it with the right underlying movement. Especially at least a base level of it.

Secondly, I think the Left has started doing this but needs to continue getting rid of identity politics. Do not make policy or have platforms that single out one specific race or gender to help. If progressive policies are genuinely good for the American working class, all people will benefit, and all families will benefit.

All of this is to say that "Woke 1.0" has heavily damaged Democrats with young white men. Democrats absolutely need to change how they approach campaigning. If the followers of the DSA agenda really want to make change, they need to appeal to this group of people. The majority of these guys are open to many ideas and would be fine with multiple things on the DSA platform. The vast majority of them are not Christian nationalists or white supremacists.

Business Overview

• Who they sell to: They supply critical systems to commercial aviation operators, defense contractors, governments, and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).
• What they build: They manufacture aircraft engines, avionics, auxiliary power units (APUs), braking systems, fly-by-wire controls, and space exploration equipment.
• The main benefit: They provide essential technologies that enhance fuel efficiency, safety, and navigation resilience, while also helping international defense customers meet strict economic offset agreements.
• Where the products are used: Their systems end up in commercial airliners, business jets, military defense platforms (across air, land, sea, and space), helicopters, and spacecraft.

Top Customers

The company sells directly to major aerospace OEMs and global defense ministries. Their current exposure includes supplying massive production programs like the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320, as well as serving fractional ownership fleets that are driving record demand for midsize and super-midsize business jets.

Recent Structural Changes & Cash Flow

The company completed its spin-off from Honeywell International in June 2026. In 2024, they saw a dip in free cash flow down to $2.05B and a heavy investing cash outflow of negative $2.6B. However, financials have stabilized post-restructuring. 2025 free cash flow rebounded to $3.2B, and operating cash flow reached $3.71B.

Q2 2026 Quarterly Report & Short-Term Headwinds

While the long-term pure-play thesis remains intriguing, HONA's second-quarter 2026 earnings report highlighted significant near-term execution issues. The market reacted poorly to the recent results, with shares tanking and analysts like Morgan Stanley cutting their price targets from $235 to $205.

Key Headwinds from the Recent Quarter:

• Guidance Cuts: Management slashed the 2026 full-year guidance, specifically cutting the EBIT outlook by $300 million to a range of $4.35 billion to $4.45 billion.
• Supply Chain Bottlenecks: Although organic sales rose by 5%, severe supply constraints from just 2% of their suppliers limited overall output growth to 4%. Material supply shortages have consistently capped sales growth potential across their end markets.
• Margin Pressures: The supply chain bottlenecks forced the company to shift production toward lower margin products.

Growth Opportunities

The core growth thesis centers on their new status as a standalone aerospace company. Without competing for capital against an industrial automation parent, HONA can pursue focused aerospace acquisitions. Key near-term drivers include ramping commercial aviation production rates, a forecasted record demand for business jets (fueled by a 65% growth in fractional fleets since 2019), and long-term modernization needs across defense domains.

Valuation Metrics

The current market pricing at $165 presents an interesting value gap when looking at forward projections:

• P/E Ratio: The trailing P/E ratio sits high at 49.75x, but the forward P/E drops significantly to 20.92x, with Morningstar noting a normalized P/E of 17.70.
• Price-to-Sales (P/S): The stock trades at a P/S ratio of roughly 2.89 to 2.93.
• Morningstar Rating: Assigned a 5-star rating with a Medium uncertainty rating and a fair value estimate of $256.00.

Gambling addiction affects 7.5 to 10.5 million Americans. Diagnoses and problem behaviors have climbed by over 60% in states that legalized mobile sports betting. I appreciate every time Breaking Points talks about the impact gambling is having on society.

Men are roughly 3.4 times more likely to experience gambling addiction than women. The legalization of gambling has increased divorce rates and made men less reliable partners, or less willing to marry, as they divert resources and attention toward betting.

Gambling addictions are hard to spot when they start. With alcohol or drugs, you can see when a person is in an altered state. Gambling is pushed onto Americans through ads while watching football, browsing YouTube, or scrolling through social media. If a person starts to gamble from their phone, it can escalate without their family knowing. This often leads to drained savings, debt, and stealing from others. Damage is caused not just to the person with the addiction, but to children, partners, and family members.

On top of this, the government is protecting gambling companies against states trying to protect citizens.

As a society, we need to be aware of this epidemic. Breaking Points sharing news and studies about it is important. We need to push back against the normalization of gambling and learn the signs of addiction. While these signs are harder to notice than other addictions, they include irritability, especially while watching sports, asking to borrow money, unpaid bills, collection calls, or a sense that something is wrong.

The question is whether a person can be pro U.S. worker while also supporting the current situation regarding high levels of illegal immigration and the more left wing solutions around it.

I would like someone to explain how you can be on both sides of this coin. Below, I will lay out my argument for why you cannot be. (The title of this post is meant for people to click and engage, but I am open to hearing how someone might explain it.)

Many illegal aliens come to the United States seeking an opportunity to work and to better their families' lives. However, this comes at the cost of American workers. Many of these Americans are heavily concentrated in lower wage, less skilled jobs such as construction labor, building cleaning and maintenance, food service and preparation, groundskeeping, retail sales, and food processing.

Job competition with illegal immigrants brings down wages, benefits, and job opportunities for Americans who are looking for similar work. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reviewed the research on the effects of immigration on the U.S. labor market and cited numerous academic studies showing negative wage impacts from immigration, particularly on the least educated. A 2019 review of over 50 studies by economist Anthony Edo took a more international perspective and came to the same conclusion. Edo points out that low skill immigration tends to make low skill natives the “losers” and high skill natives the “winners,” which highlights another contradiction the Left runs into.

Furthermore, the notion that illegal immigrants only do jobs Americans don’t want is false. Even in the two dozen occupations where illegal immigrants make up 15 percent or more of all workers, 5.7 million U.S. born Americans are also employed.

Farm work also gets brought up often. In a 2018 Center for Immigration Studies report, they estimated that just 4 percent of all illegal aliens in the labor force were employed in agriculture. Pew Research estimates a similar percentage. The illegal share of labor within the agricultural sector is only 28%, with the rest being either native born or legal immigrants. Less than 5% of all illegal immigrants work in the agricultural sector.

Overall, illegal immigration hurts the American worker. Supporting policies that help illegal immigrants or allowing people to cross into the U.S. freely fails to protect American workers, especially those with modest levels of education. These workers already earn the lowest wages and are the most likely to be unemployed or out of the labor force entirely.

I might be in the minority on a political subreddit, but the Democratic Socialists of America platform is far left. Beyond the fact that many of their ideas are simply bad, if put in the national spotlight, Republicans will tear them apart. Once football season rolls around, the attack ads write themselves.

Open Borders: I use the term 'open borders' because specific policies will effectively create an open border situation in practice. Allowing workers to 'freely migrate between countries to seek employment without restrictive immigration controls would cause a flood of labor from countries like Mexico, Central American nations, India, and China. This would undercut working class Americans across every field. It reads like a Koch brothers scheme, something a 2006 Republican could only dream of. Furthermore, the platform supports full voting rights for noncitizens. If you are not a U.S. citizen, you shouldn't be able to vote in U.S. elections. That's a commonsense stance that most people agree. Around 80% of Americans support purging noncitizens from voter rolls.

Education: Free universal public pre-K is a winning policy and a good idea. However, making all public higher education tuition-free, complete with full room and board and canceling all student loan debt is a bad idea, as well as politically. First, government involvement is the main reason college costs have skyrocketed in the first place. Tuition should have decreased with the rise of community college programs and online learning, but heavy government regulation and subsidized loans have artificially inflated prices. Without structural reforms to higher education, canceling debt essentially rewards universities and lenders for inflating tuition, incentivizing a cycle of continued reckless borrowing. Second, full debt cancellation lacks broad public support. A YouGov poll showed that only 18% of respondents believe the federal government should cancel all student loan debt. If you throw in room and board with that, I would guess it would drop lower. Third, it acts as a regressive wealth transfer. Individuals without degrees, who generally earn lower average incomes, end up subsidizing degree-holders who are likely to earn significantly more over their lifetimes. Fourth, without government guidelines on which degrees are covered, making higher education completely free will produce a surplus of degree holders who lack the specific skills needed for available jobs. Fifthly, should a 22 year old have there room and board paid for by the tax payers? I think this will be a very unpopular idea.

Rent Control: Rent control simply does not work. While it benefits existing tenants with lower rents, it discourages new construction, reduces the overall supply of available units, and incentivizes landlords to not upkeep rental properties. Ultimately, it only continues to hurt younger generations. The real solution is to encourage building, first through zoning and permitting reform, and second through tax incentives. In Austin, the building pipeline, including reducing regulatory barriers for new developments, has helped increase overall housing stock, pushing prices down not just in newer high end buildings, but also in older, more affordable ones.

Free Gender-Affirming Care: While I gave my personal opinion on previous topics, for this one I want to highlight a strategic point. Republicans hammered home the issue of transgender participation in female sports and shared spaces like bathrooms. A talking point that clearly resonated with voters and led the Democratic Party to pull back. Government funded gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapy would immediately become the focal point of Republican attack ads.

32-Hour Workweek: A 32-hour workweek with no reduction in pay or benefits is not only completely impractical, but it's also bad policy. First, it will actively disadvantage hourly wage earners. Employers won't simply start paying eight hours of overtime every week. They’ll cap hours, hire more part-time staff, or just scale back business operations. Second, this policy disproportionately hurts small businesses compared to large corporations. A local business can't easily absorb the cost of hiring extra staff to cover those missing eight hours of labor the way a Walmart or McDonald's can. Finally, are we really prepared to drop national labor output by 20%? A mandate will cause shrinking economy and widespread layoffs.

Radical Systemic Change: Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote, replacing the two-party system with proportional representation, expanding the House of Representatives, ending the Senate filibuster, and limiting the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. That is a massive amount of reform all at once. Aside from my policy disagreements with most of these proposals, pushing for such radical systemic overhauls usually backfires by scaring voters into swinging to the opposition.

https://program.dsausa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/DSA_WDM2025Program_v2.pdf
https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/49386-explaining-partisan-gap-support-student-loan-debt-forgiveness-poll
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2026/03/18/austins-surge-of-new-housing-construction-drove-down-rents
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeseq/2025/09/10/the-forgotten-story-of-college-costs--student-aid/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/03/another-new-poll-shows-massive-support-for-save-america-act/

Hello,

I am a voter from Central Illinois, and usually have zero interest in Seattle's politics. This sub seems really passionate about Washington's 9th Congressional District, though, so it got me interested in seeing what is happening.

Some needed context, Washington uses a top-two primary system. All candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot during the August primary. The two candidates with the highest number of votes move on to the general election in November, meaning it is possible for two candidates from the same party to face each other.

A lot of the talk seems to be around Kshama Sawant, an Indian-American socialist politician and economist who served on the Seattle City Council from 2014 to 2024 and is a member of Revolutionary Workers. She is pretty far to the left, especially for U.S. politics. Her personality has been described as off putting by some, while others defend her. She seems like an interesting character at minimum.

Adam Smith is the current U.S. representative for the district. He won his seat in 1996 by defeating incumbent Republican Randy Tate with 50.4 percent of the vote, and he has never faced another contest nearly that close. He seems more left than the average Democrat, but still a party guy.

Douglas Basler is the Republican in the race and lost the last election by like 40 points, so no real need to talk about him.

It seems like BP is only interviewing Adam Smith and not Kshama Sawant. Some people are upset about this, arguing that BP is letting personal conflicts stand in the way of interviewing someone who is challenging the establishment. Others are saying she is crazy and shouldn't be invited on the show.

Can someone lay out the case for bringing her on? Can someone layout the case for not bringing her on? Basis is of coursed welcomed.

Vote below for brining Kshama Sawant on.

If the SEC and Big Ten broke away entirely, March Madness could cease to exist.

A 34 to 36 school postseason tournament featuring only SEC and Big Ten teams would not gain the same ratings. It would completely lack the David vs. Goliath magic, Cinderella stories, and big brands like Duke, Kansas, and UConn that give March Madness its multibillion dollar value.

The remaining NCAA (Big 12, ACC, Big East, Gonzaga, etc.) would still hold the rights to "March Madness" and the Final Four. A tournament featuring UConn, Duke, Kansas, Houston, and Villanova would still command massive ratings and arguably represent higher quality basketball than an SEC/Big Ten exclusive event.

If a school completely leaves the NCAA, non NCAA schools generally cannot participate in NCAA sanctioned conference play without special waivers. This will hurt all sports outside of football.

Basketball brings in 15% to 25% of major revenue for these athletic departments, and no AD is going to willingly hand that money back. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I just don't see a university president risking the stability of all their other sports.

Look at the U.S. cell carrier market. Over the last 20 years, we went from a fragmented market to massive market saturation and full consolidation around the Big Three (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile).

I think streaming could heading down the exact same path. In 10 - 20 years, streaming will reach near total adoption in the U.S. and settle into an oligopoly of 3 dominant players, with a few niche services filling the gaps. Could be Netflix, Disney, and Paramount + HBO/Max. With a Crunchy Roll or other niche services still around. I am not sure Apple and Amazon will see value keeping their services going.

This is an idea. I am not sold on it, just popped in my head and wanted to share.

I wanted to share a different take on that post about what Ryan said.

The OP said "Ryan said this today and it really shook me (I might not have it exactly right, but it’s really close) - “The biggest problem for me is just the wealth. As Western economies are growing at about one 1% a year, oligarch wealth is growing at something like 5 to 20% per year. The wealth they’re accumulating has to come from somewhere if it’s not coming from economic growth. And that somewhere, is everyone else. And the way that exponential returns work it’s not long before the top 0.1% owning 10%, increases to the top 0.1% owning 40 or 50%. And then basically, the rest of us are all just renting from them. It’s a return to feudalism of 1,000 years ago and the democratic experiment is over.”

This quote instantly reminded me of "You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy," a phrase published by the World Economic Forum in 2016. This was a huge deal on the Right. The issue that Ryan laid out has been a concern for many on the Right for a long time.

My solution to this is to reject the idea of renting and leasing everything, and to actually own things. I always buy cars in cash and do the work myself. I try to avoid subscribing to everything, and focus on buying assets like stocks and land.

I think policy that gives people the right to work on things they own is very important. Saagar recently laid out the case for property taxes better than I could. In fairness, the whole pie is still growing, our economy is not in stagflation or shrinking. However, I wanted to point out that it is the Left now speaking out against this, but it was the Right a decade ago. Both the Left and Right have successfully identified the problem, but the solution needs to be worked out together. Otherwise, the problem will only grow.

American: Memphis over UTSA. Brand new to the conference, but Charles Huff is a proven winner. He's turned around Southern Miss in a year and already has a Sun Belt title to his name from his time at Marshall. Factor in a list of solid transfers and that FedEx money too. Meanwhile, UTSA gets South Florida and Navy at home. They might just average 40 points a game this year, too.

Conference USA: Jacksonville State over Liberty. Jax State will have to reload after losing Cam Cook, but Caden Creel returns at QB who had over 1k running yards and 1..5k passing yards. Their defense is supposed to be at the top of the conference. I feel like Liberty has the bones to dominate this conference. They will bounce back this year to make the title game.

MAC: Western Michigan over Toledo. The Broncos bring back 10 starters, including quarterback Broc Lowry. Getting Miami at home to end the season will definitely help. Toledo is going to sneak up on people this year. Andrew Zock, the FCS Defensive Player of the Year, is going to give teams in the MAC absolute fits with the pressure he can bring.

Mountain West Conference: New Mexico over UNLV. Jason Eck has completely turned the Lobos around in his first year. With 12 returning starters, I think they just continue to build on that foundation. On the flip side, UNLV has the most upside of any team in the Mountain West. If Dan Mullen can get the most out of Jackson Arnold, the Rebels are going to be dangerous.

Pac-12: Boise State over Fresno State. Boise State is the clear favorite in the Pac-12, and I'm not going to overthink it. They are bringing back their QB, the running backs, and three starting offensive linemen who were a part of a team that averaged almost 30 points a game. On the flip side, Matt Entz got Fresno State to 9-4 in his first year, and just like New Mexico, they will build on that foundation to make a run at the title game.

Sun Belt: JMU over Troy. The Sun Belt East is completely stacked this year. JMU, Old Dominion, and Marshall might be the three best programs in the entire conference. Throw in App State as a wild card, and you have a really strong seven team division. Even with the turnover, I think JMU is going to reload nicely under Sun Belt Billy Napier. Over in the West, Troy has the most preseason picks to win their division, and it makes total sense. Their defense is going to be anchored by the preseason Defensive Player of the Year, Donnie Smith.

What are your picks for the Group of 6 champions? Mix in a little of what you would want to see too.

Alright Texas guy, here is the true top 5.

1. Notre Dame - They open the season at Green Bay, followed by a matchup against Rice. After that, they play Michigan........State and Purdue (where some people have the hot take that Purdue will actually win a conference game), before facing Hall of Fame coach Bill Belichick and UNC. Next, they take on their California rival, Stanford. Then comes a matchup I love for some reason, on the road at BYU, followed by Miami at home. To close out the season, they play ACC powers Boston College, SMU, and Syracuse.

2. Sacramento State - This team is playing at Central Michigan on a Wednesday night in November for a conference game. You commit to an FCS school in California just to end up playing Wednesday night MAC games. Out of conference games include Hawaii, Mississippi Valley State, and NDSU. Brutal.

3. Texas Tech - I put this here to piss off the Texas Fan.

4. Texas A&M - See 3rd rank team for explanation.

5. Rutgers - I could bring up how they play USC, Indiana, Michigan, and Penn State. That is not why they are on this list. Every day, Rutgers football lives in pain. They won the first college football game and it has been downhill ever since. Every single year they have the toughest schedule, because the tens of fans, the coaches, and the administration know they will never amount to much of anything. But hey, at least they got brought into the Big Ten since they were viewed as a New York market school.

The final 4 will be Bryce & Trinity, KC & Titi, Aniya & Carl, and Melanie & Sincere.

I think Bryce & Trinity are the pretty obvious and clear winners of this season unless something completely wild happens.

KC & Titi being saved on Sunday proves what I suspected: there is a clear backing for them, even if a majority of people didn't and still might not, like KC. I would guess that KC & Titi might have gotten the second most votes. The breakdown probably looks something like 70ish% for Bryce & Trinity, 15ish% for KC & Titi, 5ish% for Melanie & Sincere, and 5ish% for Aniya & Carl. That's just a guess based on vibes, with the remaining 5% divided among the other three couples. I think it shakes out this way because Bryce & Trinity will take the mainstream vote from people who like them, but also like the "big 4" girls. KC & Titi, on the other hand, are appealing to a different set of voters who will strictly pick them as their number one.

Aniya & Carl will have backing from the islanders, and I am not sure if there is anyone in America who dislikes this couple. I am a self admitted KC fan and I still like them, so I do not know who could dislike them. If there is an actual camp of people that do not, I mean like at least 5%, please let me know.

Lastly, the hardest ones to pick were Melanie & Sincere. They probably shouldn't make it, however, when the chips are down, I think the islanders will choose their friendships, and I think more will break for Melanie & Sincere than Kayda & Zack. Also, I think Kenzie has less support from America and no support within the Villa.

Bryce & Trinity have like a 99% chance to win. I think Melanie & Sincere were the only other couple to have a real chance in the last three weeks, but Sincere threw that away, and probably the entire relationship. Too much of the country dislikes KC, so KC & Titi will have enough votes to stay around, but not too win. I think Aniya & Carl work well, but are too plain, I guess, to win a show like this (not a bad thing lol). Kayda & Zack are kind of self destructing and are playing second fiddle to the stars, Bryce & Trinity. The real couple is actually Bryce & Zack. Lastly, there's Kenzie & Dylan, but I don't think the islanders are buying anything Kenzie is saying, and neither is America.

I don't care who's hosting, I just love a good monologue. I want to hear a well thought out point delivered in about five minutes, fueled by the host's genuine passion for their chosen topic. I think they used to do this every show, and I'm not sure when it stopped.

Hello,

I am trying to replace the harmonic balancer on my 2006 4.0L V6 Mustang. I was finally able to get the crank bolt out. I had to use a chain vise grip on a tie rod to stop the engine from turning while my neighbor broke the bolt loose with a breaker bar.

Now, I am using a Harbor Freight puller kit to remove the harmonic balancer itself. I am using a 1/4" extension inside the crank snout to push against because I saw that trick in a couple of YouTube videos.

The problem is, when I tighten the thick center bolt on the puller, I just end up turning the balancer instead of pulling it off. Do I need to use the same chain and tie rod setup to hold it still like I did to get the bolt off? What am I doing wrong?

It is the offseason, which means you get an offseason post.

I want to share my fantasy Mountain West moving forward. I think the Mountain West has been smart by adding football only members, especially NDSU. I think NIU is a little odd, but we can work with that. UC Davis will join the FBS ranks in time. I think it is really unlikely that GCU will add Football.

This is a fantasy..........

The goal is to build a G6 football conference that will produce a good on-field product while trying to limit the negatives by the 2030 season.

I think you build a North division and a South division to limit the distance needed to travel, and I like divisions. I would like to see 7 teams in each division, with a requirement to play the other 6 division teams each year, and 3 teams from the other division each season. That makes 9 total conference games.

Current Northern Teams: NIU, NDSU, Wyoming, and Air Force. Current Southern Teams: UTEP, New Mexico, UNLV, Nevada, San Jose State, and Hawaii.

So, I will look to add 3 teams to the North, and 2 teams to the South.

North

South Dakota State: SDSU is the other Dakota powerhouse in the FCS and will make a good travel triangle for those Northern schools. I think it supports the idea of making a good, improved product on the field.

Montana & Montana State: Both schools have good football traditions and passionate fanbases. Both have had great success and continue the theme of taking top FCS programs.

South

UC Davis: This is 99% likely to happen, since they are already a member of the Mountain West for everything but football.

Northern Arizona University: I think the second South school is probably where you have the highest number of choices because there is no clear and easy choice. Some names I thought of were Tarleton State, New Mexico State, or GCU gaining football. Although not the best choice, I wanted something outside of the box. So, let me pitch you on NAU. They are a perfect geographic fit being in northern Arizona. NAU has an enrollment of over 28,000 students. They have a $300+ million endowment fund. Honestly, not a great choice, but I wanted to have some fun lol.