Conference Realignment thread

[sactowndog]

On 9/19/2023 at 8:40 AM, baileyake said:

 

Fresno has gone head to head with Coach Prime 2 out of 3 weeks and played FCS the other game.  It’s a miracle we are that high. 

[SteedLaw]

On 9/19/2023 at 8:33 PM, Headbutt said:

I think it's a really dumb idea.  The only redeeming feature would be that we're doing something different from the P4.  I get that I'm in the minority, but I hate it.

Nah, you are not in the minority, just the non-vocal majority.

It would never work for a number of reasons. First, as others have stated, the difference in revenue would never work. You would need a lot of teams for this league and the smaller teams would never agree. There are just not enough teams that would sign up to support this type of model.

Second, and more important, somebody didn’t get the memo that relegation only works in terminal leagues — i.e., there is nothing higher. It is why it works in European Soccer and not in U.S. Soccer. Essentially, there is too much risk borne by the conference as a whole, because the winners would not just go to a higher tier, they would exit the league entirely and permanently at the risk and expense of the other members. They would win, exit to the B1G 10 and never come back. 

Third, we are talking college athletic conferences, not just football. How do you tell the potentially best women’s soccer team in the conference (if not the best in multiple conferences) that they are being relegated because the football boys didn’t perform? Or, on the other hand, how do you count conference wins in all sports when not all schools and teams even play the same sports? LOL, most schools have at least one sport that is not even supported by the league. 

And fourth — if you are still not sold, consider this “nail-in-the-coffin” fact — these are academics we are talking about who will ultimately make these decisions — not just “sports fans”. The whole system is rife with too much risk and even potential injustices—which injustices may also be perpetrated to a degree based on gender. These University Presidents are not entrepreneurs or equity owners of these teams — they are trustees and fiduciaries whose job is to minimize risk at all costs to legacy institutions of higher learning. And, that is IF this system is not on its face in direct violation of Title IX, a Federal law, which it clearly would be.
 

LOL, did you really believe University Presidents (who are risk averse by their very job description) would go for this? Of note, the supposed anonymous MWC AD in the article was the AD — i.e., a sports fan, non-academic, non-president and, ultimately in this case, a non-decision maker.

It is DOA. It is merger or bust already.  

[Wyobraska]

Relegation isn't a good idea in my mind.  I hope like they hell they don't try something like that. 

[sactowndog]

On 9/19/2023 at 7:33 PM, Headbutt said:

I think it's a really dumb idea.  The only redeeming feature would be that we're doing something different from the P4.  I get that I'm in the minority, but I hate it.

Because in football a team can suffer bad injuries you have to pay at the same level the upper tier and the two teams relegated otherwise you create perverse incentives to play people hurt.   

[bigd]

The problem with relegation in college is that teams change so much from year to year.

Players only get four years. Each season deserves a fresh start. Being punished for having a bad season a year ago, or however it would work is lame.

 

For example, what if TCU was relegated to the bottom of the Big 12, they wouldn’t have had a chance at the championship?

[SteedLaw]

On 9/19/2023 at 8:37 PM, EvilPoke said:

This sounds like some crazy bullshit plan that myself and @SteedLaw would think of, but not put any effort into writing it down because it would never happen.

Let's do it!

You win my undying respect, sir! 

[sactowndog]

I think it also works better if you have 4 groups of 8.  To Texas west and two Texas east.  That creates a National fan base with interest in the games.  

Conf Season is 7 games and one cross over. 8 games which leaves room for cross conference rivalries. 

Conference post season is ( for simplicity assume 1-16 on each side) 

1 West versus 1 East PAC champ (PAN  America Conference)

9 East versus 9 west AAC Champ (American Athletic Conference)

7 v 9  West relegation game   
7 v 9 East relegation game  

 

[thespywhozaggedme]

Intellectual honesty time; how many people who are down on the idea actually read the article? Be honest. I read the entire article and I’m completely sold on the idea. Would create so much excitement, and every week would be must watch TV.

[EvilPoke]

It all comes down to TV money.

If it means $15M per upper school and $10M for lower division, we're doing it.

On another note, what would be hilarious is if you're at the bottom of the MW, you drop to CUSA.

[NorthWestCowboy]

On 9/19/2023 at 7:33 PM, Headbutt said:

I think it's a really dumb idea.  The only redeeming feature would be that we're doing something different from the P4.  I get that I'm in the minority, but I hate it.

I hate it as well.  It is foolish to think promotion and relegation would work in college football.  The roster turnover in college football is just too high due to the nature of the university association and the student athlete.  The team roster of the programs that get promoted or relegated could be very different the following season.  It works in a professional setting where you have a draft and/or contracts giving some level of stability to a roster.  You want pay to play to go on steroids then by all means set up a promotion and relegation system in a sport where the athletes have 4 years of eligibility.  Without a draft the transfer portal and NIL will be the only way to bring in athletes to move up and stay in the premier division.  At that point it might as well be a professional sport which begs the question as to why the university affiliation other than to make $.

[Brew_Poke]

On 9/18/2023 at 3:21 PM, 818SUDSFan said:

With 24 months' notice of departure, $17M. And if the percentage actually paid is the same as what Maryland paid the ACC, $10M. That number multiplied by six would be a good size amount of money for the six MWC leftovers to be sure. But it had better be because their/your annual TV revenue going forward would be of MAC-ian proportions.

"Your"? Always with the division with you. What makes you so certain Wyoming wouldn't be taken? You sure can't conceive of any reality other than a hierarchical one. What's wrong with everyone winning? Reality isn't a zero sum thing

[SalinasSpartan]

On 9/19/2023 at 9:11 PM, thespywhozaggedme said:

Intellectual honesty time; how many people who are down on the idea actually read the article? Be honest. I read the entire article and I’m completely sold on the idea. Would create so much excitement, and every week would be must watch TV.

Just read it. Don’t think it will happen for the main reason they talk about in the article, the uncertainty around the budget; even if it’s “only” a difference of a few million.

[wolf from 73]

On 9/19/2023 at 7:08 PM, wolfpack1 said:

Here is an article on yahoo about the WSU and OSU situation and how some unnamed AD's including an MWC AD talking about different ideas that are being talked about

Promotion/relegation in college football? Game-changing idea could help save Pac-12 (yahoo.com)

"North Dakota State and South Dakota State are obvious expansion targets."                                          Where is that Byson fan he will love this idea. This is an intriguing idea that should get a thorough examination. The financial benefit to all the members would have to be substantial in order for it to work.

[HawaiiMongoose]

I think the promotion/relegation concept will founder on the shoals of unequal revenue distribution between the two levels and fear of fan disengagement at the lower level.

However I could see it working with some tweaks to make relegation less traumatic, at the price of making promotion less enriching.

First, the difference in revenue distribution between the two levels needs to be less, e.g. $1-$2 million per year.  Not enough for relegation to hurt the core operating budget of anyone's athletic program, or to put the lower level teams at a significant competitive disadvantage, but enough to make it feel like there's a meaningful bonus associated with promotion.

Second, the number of teams moving up and down each season needs to be more than two from each level.  I think it should be four from each level.  The intent would be that if you have a winning conference season at your level, it's very likely you'll stay in or move to the upper level the following season.  If you have a losing conference season at your level, it's very likely you'll stay in or move to the lower division the following season.  That seems reasonably fair to me, inasmuch as nearly everyone who turns in a winning slate by the end of the season is likely to be rewarded (similar to becoming bowl eligible by finishing .500 or above).  Moreover turning things around and recovering from a relegation will feel like something that's achievable in a year or two, rather than taking the full span of a college athlete's career.  Having relegation and promotion apply to half of the teams will also ensure that almost every conference game at both levels carries a high level of drama for at least most of the season.

Just my two cents.

[utgrizfan]

On 9/19/2023 at 11:46 PM, wolf from 73 said:

"North Dakota State and South Dakota State are obvious expansion targets."                                          Where is that Byson fan he will love this idea. This is an intriguing idea that should get a thorough examination. The financial benefit to all the members would have to be substantial in order for it to work.

Though I feel the scenario is very very unlikely it would be good for both Montana and MSU as well, hell along with Idaho.

[wolf from 73]

On 9/19/2023 at 10:49 PM, HawaiiMongoose said:

I think the promotion/relegation concept will founder on the shoals of unequal revenue distribution between the two levels and fear of fan disengagement at the lower level.

However I could see it working with some tweaks to make relegation less traumatic, at the price of making promotion less enriching.

First, the difference in revenue distribution between the two levels needs to be less, e.g. $1-$2 million per year.  Not enough for relegation to hurt the core operating budget of anyone's athletic program, or to put the lower level teams at significant competitive disadvantage, but enough to make it feel like there's a meaningful bonus associated with promotion.

Second, the number of teams moving up and down each season needs to be more than two from each level.  I think it should be four from each level.  The intent would be that if you have a winning conference season at your level, it's very likely you'll stay in or move to the upper level the following season.  If you have a losing conference season at your level, it's very likely you'll stay in or move to the lower division the following season.  That seems reasonably fair to me, inasmuch as nearly everyone who turns in a winning slate by the end of the season is likely to be rewarded (similar to becoming bowl eligible by finishing .500 or above).  Moreover turning things around and recovering from a relegation will feel like something that can be done in a year or two, rather than taking the full span of a college athlete's career.  Having relegation and promotion apply to half of the teams will also ensure that almost every conference game at both levels carries a high level of drama for at least most of the season.

Just my two cents.

The relegated teams would have to make about 6 mill and the elevated 8 mill per year for this to get a serious look and full backing from all the schools. Not sure they could get that number but if they could lets do it. This would be an incentive based league and reward those that succeed but not really punish those that don't.

[HawaiiMongoose]

On 9/19/2023 at 7:46 PM, wolf from 73 said:

"North Dakota State and South Dakota State are obvious expansion targets."                                          Where is that Byson fan he will love this idea. This is an intriguing idea that should get a thorough examination. The financial benefit to all the members would have to be substantial in order for it to work.

It's really interesting to me that Dellenger's story suggests that NDSU and SDSU are the "obvious" expansion candidates, rather than current FBS programs (e.g. in Texas).  That sounds like an acknowledgement that it would be difficult for the Pac/MWC to pry anyone away from the AAC given exit fees.  It also conveys some respect for the fact that these are the two top-ranked teams in FCS at the moment, although notably, neither has scheduled or played an FBS opponent this season.  But to me, what it most signifies is an interest in moving the Pac/MWC footprint into the one remaining area in the contiguous U.S. where there's currently no FBS presence.  Basically it would be a play to take control of the Dakotas market, building on the MWC precedent of owning the predominant programs in low population western states.

[wolfpack1]

On 9/19/2023 at 11:02 PM, utgrizfan said:

Though I feel the scenario is very very unlikely it would be good for both Montana and MSU as well, hell along with Idaho.

I think they would have to add more sports as well

[wolfpack1]

On 9/19/2023 at 11:08 PM, HawaiiMongoose said:

It's really interesting to me that Dellenger's story suggests that NDSU and SDSU are the "obvious" expansion candidates, rather than current FBS programs (e.g. in Texas).  That sounds like an acknowledgement that it would be difficult for the Pac/MWC to pry anyone away from the AAC given exit fees.  It also conveys some respect for the fact that these are the two top-ranked teams in FCS at the moment, although notably, neither has scheduled or played an FBS opponent this season.  But to me, what it most signifies is an interest in moving the Pac/MWC footprint into the one remaining area in the contiguous U.S. where there's currently no FBS presence.  Basically it would be a play to take control of the Dakotas market, building on the MWC precedent of owning the predominant programs in low population states.

I think two months ago, or so, there was an article where the author said "sources" said that both schools had sent out feelers to a few conferences about the possibility of moving up and who would be interested and what the costs would be. Both schools later when asked for comment said that was the first time they ever heard that themselves. Could be using that as basis

[wolfpack1]

Since the story was posted there has been a bit of feedback, which has started some talking on it also among sports writers on tweet