(03-14-2023 04:07 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 12:01 AM)AztecNation Wrote:  I think relegation only works if there's a national TV deal split among conferences/teams.

Basic structure would be something like have 4 Power Conferences:

Pac - West

ACC - East

B1G - MidWest

SEC - South

16 schools in each conference = top 64.

Then have 2nd tier for each region

MWC - West

AAC - East

SunBelt - South

MAC - MidWest

16 schools in each conference = 128 total (which is about how many FBS schools exist)

Have some sort of 5 year method to see if teams get demoted/promoted that way it doesn't punish schools for 1 bad year or reward fluke seasons in the 2nd tier.

All Power schools make the same TV money. 2nd Tier schools all make the same TV money (obviously less than the power tier).

Power schools have their own playoff, 2nd Tier schools have their own playoff.


The biggest roadblock is the power schools today will not want to risk getting relegated (especially since some power schools will be forced to be relegated initially) but I think it would be fun and entertaining for fans. Every school has a stake and winning is prioritized. Only way it happens though is if the media push for it hard and I don't know if that's something they'd want to do.

No promotion/relegation. College football doesn't need to become European soccer.

Why not? European soccer is very popular and we already have a professional football league so we don't need college football turning into that. If I wanted to watch the best of the best exclusively then I would just watch the NFL.

That article seems like it was written 3-6 months ago with how they were suggesting SMU and San Diego State to the PAC. It now seems pretty obvious that if the PAC exists at all in 1-3 months, they'll stay at 10 teams.

(03-14-2023 09:07 AM)AztecNation Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 04:07 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 12:01 AM)AztecNation Wrote:  I think relegation only works if there's a national TV deal split among conferences/teams.

Basic structure would be something like have 4 Power Conferences:

Pac - West

ACC - East

B1G - MidWest

SEC - South

16 schools in each conference = top 64.

Then have 2nd tier for each region

MWC - West

AAC - East

SunBelt - South

MAC - MidWest

16 schools in each conference = 128 total (which is about how many FBS schools exist)

Have some sort of 5 year method to see if teams get demoted/promoted that way it doesn't punish schools for 1 bad year or reward fluke seasons in the 2nd tier.

All Power schools make the same TV money. 2nd Tier schools all make the same TV money (obviously less than the power tier).

Power schools have their own playoff, 2nd Tier schools have their own playoff.


The biggest roadblock is the power schools today will not want to risk getting relegated (especially since some power schools will be forced to be relegated initially) but I think it would be fun and entertaining for fans. Every school has a stake and winning is prioritized. Only way it happens though is if the media push for it hard and I don't know if that's something they'd want to do.

No promotion/relegation. College football doesn't need to become European soccer.

Why not? European soccer is very popular and we already have a professional football league so we don't need college football turning into that. If I wanted to watch the best of the best exclusively then I would just watch the NFL.

It would wreak havoc on scheduling and especially the transfer portal.

(03-14-2023 11:09 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 09:07 AM)AztecNation Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 04:07 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-14-2023 12:01 AM)AztecNation Wrote:  I think relegation only works if there's a national TV deal split among conferences/teams.

Basic structure would be something like have 4 Power Conferences:

Pac - West

ACC - East

B1G - MidWest

SEC - South

16 schools in each conference = top 64.

Then have 2nd tier for each region

MWC - West

AAC - East

SunBelt - South

MAC - MidWest

16 schools in each conference = 128 total (which is about how many FBS schools exist)

Have some sort of 5 year method to see if teams get demoted/promoted that way it doesn't punish schools for 1 bad year or reward fluke seasons in the 2nd tier.

All Power schools make the same TV money. 2nd Tier schools all make the same TV money (obviously less than the power tier).

Power schools have their own playoff, 2nd Tier schools have their own playoff.


The biggest roadblock is the power schools today will not want to risk getting relegated (especially since some power schools will be forced to be relegated initially) but I think it would be fun and entertaining for fans. Every school has a stake and winning is prioritized. Only way it happens though is if the media push for it hard and I don't know if that's something they'd want to do.

No promotion/relegation. College football doesn't need to become European soccer.

Why not? European soccer is very popular and we already have a professional football league so we don't need college football turning into that. If I wanted to watch the best of the best exclusively then I would just watch the NFL.

It would wreak havoc on scheduling and especially the transfer portal.

Scheduling is easily figured out. The transfer portal is not meant to be a stable institution; lots of factors already bend it this way and that.

(03-14-2023 03:10 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 11:04 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  I hate the idea of relegation. It destroys tradition.

Tradition is a racist code word.

SEC schools refused to play Louisville for many years because Louisville was integrated. UofL had black football players 15 years before the first black football player took the field in The SEC. That’s the excuse UK used anyway.

“Tradition is a racist code word.”

Are you serious?

In certain contexts and when used by certain college sports fans, "tradition" can carry negative racial undertones (not, of course, in the way Bullet was using the term). So, Cardinal Jim does have a point. And remember: C-Jim is a fairly conservative gentleman who would not use the term "racist" lightly; he is consistent and fair, and when he posts, I listen.

But generally speaking, I don't necessarily equate "tradition" and "racism" when discussing college sports.

The PRO/REL argument is silly. The NCAA is an open system, like England's Football Association is... But CONFERENCES are a closed system.

The NCAA has lost all semblance of power to run the sport like an actual league, unlike the FA.

The main flaw of the NCAA as compared to a pro league -- and the real root cause of everything fans argue about -- is that there's just SO MANY SCHOOLS, you can't operate as one league. Pro teams don't DECIDE their schedule, the LEAGUE makes the schedule.

But the NCAA lets its members decide who it plays on a school-by-school basis. Conferences formed from THAT (Permanent Home/Home contracts in every sport, every year. That's literally what a conference was); which turned into TV inventory cartels and here we are.

PRO/REL can't work because no one is going to accept being inferior to someone else.

(03-13-2023 11:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:55 PM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  One wild move I'll like to see is The University of Buffalo to the Big 10.

Ugh.

Speaking as someone that talks about the academic prestige angle in realignment as much as anyone, Buffalo isn’t getting into the Big Ten simply because they’re an AAU member. We have the Big Ten turning down Stanford and Cal but letting in Buffalo?!

Buffalo to the B1G is like David Street as the next B1G Commissioner...it sounds like fun, but it's not happening.

(03-13-2023 10:55 PM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  One wild move I'll like to see is The University of Buffalo to the Big 10.

If we're doing that let's go get the U of Toronto too. Maybe McGill will come. Locking down Toronto and Montreal while growing B1G hockey in Canada could be huge!

(03-14-2023 05:33 PM)Buckeye22 Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:55 PM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  One wild move I'll like to see is The University of Buffalo to the Big 10.

If we're doing that let's go get the U of Toronto too. Maybe McGill will come. Locking down Toronto and Montreal while growing B1G hockey in Canada could be huge!

Well to be fair the last question of the article was "wildest move you would like to see" so it's pretty open to however someone wants to respond.

I’m all in on promotion & relegation…American style.

When the P2 gets over 20 members each, they’ll schedule football games by tiers. A higher tier (half the conference) will play stronger opponents during the regular season; and the lower tier will face the prior season’s weaker teams. Some regional opponents will remain as permanent annual games, but the strength of conference schedules will be unbalanced. …similar to NFL scheduling. It promotes national viewership.

(03-14-2023 02:42 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  The PRO/REL argument is silly. The NCAA is an open system, like England's Football Association is... But CONFERENCES are a closed system.

The NCAA has lost all semblance of power to run the sport like an actual league, unlike the FA.

The main flaw of the NCAA as compared to a pro league -- and the real root cause of everything fans argue about -- is that there's just SO MANY SCHOOLS, you can't operate as one league. Pro teams don't DECIDE their schedule, the LEAGUE makes the schedule.

But the NCAA lets its members decide who it plays on a school-by-school basis. Conferences formed from THAT (Permanent Home/Home contracts in every sport, every year. That's literally what a conference was); which turned into TV inventory cartels and here we are.

PRO/REL can't work because no one is going to accept being inferior to someone else.

Unfortunately, we're in the minority of agreement since the majority of people on this forum want it to happen, just so they can stick it to the P2.

College football would be much better with promotion/relegation. Right now, there's no competitive consequence for being Vanderbilt, and there's no competitive reward for being Boise State. That needs to change.

(03-15-2023 05:23 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  College football would be much better with promotion/relegation. Right now, there's no competitive consequence for being Vanderbilt, and there's no competitive reward for being Boise State. That needs to change.

If relegation was introduced into the coming pay for play climate the single league would form, wouldn't be comprised of nearly as many schools, and fans would not be happy. Why? Middling programs wouldn't risk the loss of status that relegation would bring publicly. This may be fine for European footballers, but not for American football where a University's name is attached. It's one thing to encourage sports excellence, it's another entirely to besmirch the name of a school for lackluster athletic accomplishment. As long as a school's name is associated with its sports teams relegation will not exist in the U.S. in any palpable way for college sports, and instead the clustering of brands for revenue (realignment) will continue to function as the only incentive to improve.

Why not go with pro/rel in the professional ranks? There's no pretense about "school" in the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL. Sports in the college ranks are considered extracurricular activities where federal and state tax monies are used to directly and indirectly support the students and faculty, eventually flowing into the institutions. In Europe, there is no such thing as college sports, maybe intramurals for people who want to participate in an activity while studying. It would be considered scandalous for the likes of Oxford, Cambridge or Zurich School of Economics to be expected to field quasi professional teams on multi-million dollar budgets, like Ohio State does.

The sport where pro/rel could easily be adopted in the professional ranks is basketball. It doesn't take a ton of equipment - take ten guys, a basketball, two baskets and a floor to play on, with some bleachers for people who want to watch them. Watch teams flourish all over the country, from small towns to large cities. Have at it! Eventually, the clubs with the bigger budgets tend to stay at the top level, meaning more teams like the Brooklyn Nets or Los Angeles Lakers than teams like the Oklahoma City Thunder or New Orleans Pelicans. For pro/rel to work, each team is an independent operator. There is no franchise fee, no "expansion" or "contraction", no faceless corporate entity determining who can be let through the velvet rope. Just an ability to finance and support a team.

We Americans tend to have it assbackwards when it comes to how sports should be organized.

Is anyone really surprised that several espn writers are putting forth the idea of relegation?

A process by which, if implemented, espn then would not have to pay out top dollar for such relegated schools?

Gee, I'm stunned, shocked, even...

(03-15-2023 04:57 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

Is anyone really surprised that several espn writers are putting forth the idea of relegation?

A process by which, if implemented, espn then would not have to pay out top dollar for such relegated schools?

Gee, I'm stunned, shocked, even...

Yes, you are cynically naive. You should run for office.

(03-15-2023 04:57 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

Is anyone really surprised that several espn writers are putting forth the idea of relegation?

A process by which, if implemented, espn then would not have to pay out top dollar for such relegated schools?

Gee, I'm stunned, shocked, even...

However it would keep this forum active as all hell as we discussed all the relegation possibilities on a yearly basis, and how teams with longstanding rivalries would work around the system to play each other every year (say somehow Auburn is relegated, they would still play in the Iron Bowl on a yearly basis).

Imagine the possibilities for traffic and arguments here!

Would performance based unequal revenue sharing be a form of pro/relegation?

(03-15-2023 05:19 PM)Huan Wrote:  Would performance based unequal revenue sharing be a form of pro/relegation?

I would equate that more to something like the PGA tour - you're still competing against the same people, but the better you do the more money you get.

Whereas with relegation you get moved to a different set of teams you're playing against entirely and likely have a smaller pie being shared.

(03-15-2023 12:08 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Why not go with pro/rel in the professional ranks?

There's no pretense about "school" in the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL.

In Europe, there is no such thing as college sports, maybe intramurals for people who want to participate in an activity while studying.

For pro/rel to work, each team is an independent operator. There is no franchise fee, no "expansion" or "contraction", no faceless corporate entity determining who can be let through the velvet rope. Just an ability to finance and support a team.

We Americans tend to have it assbackwards when it comes to how sports should be organized.

Yes and no. The Europeans are insanely jealous of our closed-league system, because our leagues have a way increase revenues (Expansion) and they don't (and of course, no one gets relegated, but the big clubs of Europe don't have that problem).

Our pro leagues also have just A TON more parity because we have the draft (If you're terrible, you pick LeBron James #1 and become not terrible). Our parity would get a lot worse without the draft and it would make our sports leagues A LOT LESS interesting.

The massive downside of PRO/REL is that when you're selling TV rights to a country as big as ours, your can't guarantee that the massive markets just won't suddenly BE GONE from the top division:

NFL bottom three were Chicago, Houston and Phoenix. All top nine markets. Who's coming up? St. Louis, Birmingham and San Diego?

There's too much at stake in TV money to risk losing your big markets; and expansion fees are just too great for any established league to adopt it.


Where it COULD have worked was for MLS from 2006-2012 range. I think the missed a golden opportunity. They had 12-14 teams, and have since sold another 15-17 expansion teams for hundreds of millions of dollars.

But I think what they SHOULD have done was started MLS-2. Sell expansion teams to MLS-2... and when you have even numbers in MLS/MLS-2, keep selling MLS-2 teams... go to 24 and then expand MLS via promotion: winning MLS-2 playoffs.

After the second year of MLS-2 promotion playoffs, launch MLS-3!
Keep adding teams at the bottom and promoting a team each year.

Only start relegation when you're at the 32 teams in MLS, MLS-2, MLS-3. Now you've sold 82 expansion teams instead of 18, and no one who paid into MLS is in significant danger of going down because they had DECADES heads starts on building their organizations, their stadiums, their sponsorships, etc.