Should G5 conferences say no to Big 12 championship game: Roundtable

College football season is over but the offseason could begin with some huge news for the sport going forward as representatives from each FBS conference will vote on the Big 12 and ACC's proposal to deregulate conference championship games.

The Big 12 wants to have a conference championship game without having to expand past 10 teams, which goes against the rules as conferences must have 12 teams in order to have a conference championship game. Meanwhile, the ACC would like to change the format of how conference games choose their participants.

For an example, if a second-place team from the Atlantic division has a far superior conference record than the Coastal division champ, the ACC would prefer to have two teams from the Atlantic division appear in the conference title game rather than the Coastal winner.

Huge ramifications are on the line as this proposal will determine if the college football world will be in store for another round of conference realignment. As Matt Brown noted in his piece, the Big 12 and ACC will vote in favor of the proposal, Big Ten, SEC, and PAC 12 are likely to vote against it.

But where do the G5 conferences stand on the issue? Here's how we think Underdog Dynasty's conferences should vote Wednesday.

Cyrus Smith -- Conference USA

As of now we still don't know how Conference USA will vote but my guess is they will vote in favor of the Big 12 and ACC deregulation proposal and they should. The league was perceived as a major loser by many after the last round of conference realignment as it had to replace sleeping giants such as UCF and Houston with half the Sun Belt.

To watch UCF and Houston have landmark wins against P5 teams in the Fiesta Bowl and Peach Bowl respectively since joining the AAC has to be a sore spot for the league. Voting against the Big 12 will only set off another round of conference realignment which would put it in danger of losing other emerging teams i.e. Southern Miss, Marshall, Western Kentucky.

Next season the conference will see a major decrease in TV revenue due to the perception that they lack premier teams. With TV negotiations set to take place this year, it would be a hard sell for C-USA to get the most out of a TV deal if they are negotiating amidst rumors swirling about which of its teams are bolting to another league.

After finding its footing with its current league members I'm pretty sure C-USA doesn't want to go through the process of adding newer teams which would dilute their brand even more. At least I hope not.

Haisten Willis -- Sun Belt

Aside from the Big 12, no league will benefit more from conference championship game deregulation than the Sun Belt. Arguably, the Belt would benefit even more than the legislation's chief sponsor.

There has emerged a sort of hierarchy among the AAC, Conference USA and Sun Belt. Essentially, when realignment happens the AAC takes teams from C-USA, who then takes teams from the Sun Belt. This is a conference that absolutely does not want to see more expansion.

Not only that, deregulation will give the #FunBelt a chance to lose its least fun teams. New Mexico State and Idaho are obviously placeholders used to help keep the 11-team conference afloat.

With Coastal Carolina set to join, I believe the powers that be would love nothing more than to drop those two weights and become a 10-team league truly representing its geographic namesake.

Halting expansion will make that a reality. If it comes with two five-team divisions and a championship game, that's great too.

Nicolas Lewis -- The American

As you'll probably guess from what you've read thus far, the AAC has neither as much to gain from this decision as the SBC, nor as much to lose as CUSA. That makes it tricky to determine which way they might vote.

On one hand, you have a conference that just brought Navy into the fold as a means of balancing itself at a 12-member, two-division conference with a conference championship game.

This is part of their larger current status, wherein they can claim a not-so-distantly famous UCF, a "just finished 8th in the AP Poll" Houston, Navy, Memphis and Temple as member institutions, via the conference realignment that was necessitated by the pursuit of the current status quo.

So why would you vote for things to change, especially when the ensuing realignment scramble could lead to the departure of a program like Houston that is quickly becoming a national media bell cow for you?

Then again, there are worse problems than "we'll have to replace one of those teams you just mentioned with an up-and-comer like Western Kentucky, Marshall, Southern Miss or Louisana Tech." This would be nothing but another speed bump for commissioner Mike Aresco, who will bore you to tears with his goals and vision of the AAC as a sixth power conference.

Aresco has no qualms about changing what it takes to get there, considering that if the conference membership doesn't change between now and the start of next season, it will be the first offseason without change. I would like to think they'll vote against as a means of protecting the status quo they've just established, and in my opinion maintaining the current situation best serves that goal.