Is it really "extortion" though, or does it just reflect the fact that there is too huge a discrepancy across what is nominally a single subdivision of college football? The idea behind requirements like this is to have at least some standards to try to make sure the playing field is at least a little level.

If every team in the MAC has to game the system to their own economic disadvantage just to meet the attendance requirements, maybe that's a sign that teams like Miami shouldn't be playing at the same level as teams like Ohio State. It's already common sentiment that G5 teams have no access to the CFP and only token access to NY6 games, and we know about the huge discrepancies in media revenue and donors. Now we have an article talking about how they struggle to even meet the bare minimum requirements for attendance--maybe it's not so much "extortionary" as it is yet another sign that G5 conferences, or at least the MAC schools having to game attendance, shouldn't be trying to keep up with the requirements of FBS football.

I'm not trying to argue they necessarily should be moving down from FBS, but if few of their schools can even meet the minimum requirements, maybe that's a sign about how well they match (or don't match) the level of competition they're trying to play at and not so much about the NCAA being the bad guy this time.

After all, we're not talking about a few seats here and there. The requirement is 15,000 and this article says Miami purchases 10,000 a game. That's not just falling a little short of the requirement, it's nowhere in the ballpark. If you can only legitimately manage 1/3 of the minimum attendance requirement, maybe it's a sign you shouldn't be trying to stay in the highest level of play.