An interesting read if you have the time to read it all. Not sure how much really happens, but he makes some good points....I was going to post some parts of it, but it is just too long. CUSA is mentioned several times in the article. Here is the link....

http://www.thechaosindex.com/cest-la-tv-...u-realize/

(02-13-2016 10:52 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  An interesting read if you have the time to read it all. Not sure how much really happens, but he makes some good points....I was going to post some parts of it, but it is just too long. CUSA is mentioned several times in the article. Here is the link....

http://www.thechaosindex.com/cest-la-tv-...u-realize/

Seems like a lot of speculation, and a lot of trying to shoehorn the future into the narrative of the past.

The concept of promotion/relegation is long overdue for sports in this country. And this format could work for college football. Historical conference affiliation would be replaced by current on-field quality as the primary factor for determining who plays where.

An extension of the approach mentioned in the article would be if the bottom team in each 8-team P5 conference division was relegated and each G5 conference division winner was promoted each year.

I like the idea of 8 conferences paired up with each other. 4 P and 4 G with the first and last place teams relegated up and down. Playing a year in the SEC or ACC would be a lot better than a bowl as a reward for a champion. Problem is, the CUSA champ will likely have a bunch of seniors they'd lose, and then get crushed the next year with a young team.

Far-fetched but not totally unrealistic, given that the self-designated deity known as the TV Empire and the Cartel syndicate are controlling virtually all of CFB money and all of the public exposure for our universities. But, I can tell you tens of thousands of current football fans who consider the non-cartel schools their No. 1 entertainment; will turn their collective backs on CFB if this bologna happens!

It was a fun article to read with lots of interesting points. That said, you'll never see the NCAA demoting qualified FBS teams to FCS teams or eliminating qualified FBS conferences altogether IMO. I'd be surprised if any of that'd be legal in the first place and in the second place, it'd raise a bigger s-storm than the UAB situation ever thought of raising.

(02-13-2016 07:19 PM)airtroop Wrote:  It was a fun article to read with lots of interesting points. That said, you'll never see the NCAA demoting qualified FBS teams to FCS teams or eliminating qualified FBS conferences altogether IMO. I'd be surprised if any of that'd be legal in the first place and in the second place, it'd raise a bigger s-storm than the UAB situation ever thought of raising.

This proposal doesn't include demoting more than one or two FBS teams to FCS, and Idaho would be an easy move for starters.

There would still be 128 FBS teams in 8 conferences, with 64 teams in P4 and 64 teams in G4.

(02-13-2016 07:38 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 07:19 PM)airtroop Wrote:  It was a fun article to read with lots of interesting points. That said, you'll never see the NCAA demoting qualified FBS teams to FCS teams or eliminating qualified FBS conferences altogether IMO. I'd be surprised if any of that'd be legal in the first place and in the second place, it'd raise a bigger s-storm than the UAB situation ever thought of raising.

This proposal doesn't include demoting more than one or two FBS teams to FCS, and Idaho would be an easy move for starters.

There would still be 128 FBS teams in 8 conferences, with 64 teams in P4 and 64 teams in G4.

Ah, I see. Like the OP said, it was a lonnnnnnng read but an interesting one. I was reading it in between phone calls and honey do's so I must have missed that last part.

Interesting read and there some ideas I would enjoy being considered. It certainly would make things more fun on a yearly basis.

Relegation wont work in college sports for one simple reason---budgets. No president is ever going to vote for a system that could potentially cause his athletic department to go from break even to 20 million in the red in a single year. There is no way to fix that problem---thus, there is no way relegation ever sees the light of day in college sports.

(02-14-2016 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Relegation wont work in college sports for one simple reason---budgets. No president is ever going to vote for a system that could potentially cause his athletic department to go from break even to 20 million in the red in a single year. There is no way to fix that problem---thus, there is no way relegation ever sees the light of day in college sports.

Maybe a good point but then a good counterpoint could be how differently D-I (both FBS & especially FCS) schools are applying the CoA, if at all. Those who want to spend every dime they can legally spend on CoA are doing so while a handful of FBS outliers are deviating from that model, and the vast majority of the FCS.

(02-14-2016 05:08 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Relegation wont work in college sports for one simple reason---budgets. No president is ever going to vote for a system that could potentially cause his athletic department to go from break even to 20 million in the red in a single year. There is no way to fix that problem---thus, there is no way relegation ever sees the light of day in college sports.

Maybe a good point but then a good counterpoint could be how differently D-I (both FBS & especially FCS) schools are applying the CoA, if at all. Those who want to spend every dime they can legally spend on CoA are doing so while a handful of FBS outliers are deviating from that model, and the vast majority of the FCS.

What I really expect at some point in the future is a move away from current "X dollars per year" conference contract. We are nearing a point with smart TV's, computers, smart phones, and tablets---where network cable entertainment and streamed entertainment are being merged in the home. Soon, they will both be perceived equally as "TV" by the consumers. It wont be a big deal to the consumer if a show is on ABC or received over a Netflix stream. Conversely, it wont be as big deal for a team to be on ABC vs a Netflix stream. The smart tvs/cable boxes will display and search for all the content just as if it were all on your cable TV menu/schedule.

Right now, its possible via technology in cable boxes and streaming sites to count exactly how many fans are watching or streaming. If that's possible, then how far are we from simply having networks and streamers pay rights fees that float based on the number of eyeballs produced. A pair of eyeballs watching Alabama is no more valuable than a pair of eyeballs watching UMass. The price per eyeball will essentially be the same---the differences in how much conferences earn will be based on the actual differences in eyeballs produced.

In such a world---the conferences would have no idea how much they would earn until after the games are played. In such a world, a G5 conference that provides half of the viewers that a P5 conference provides, would earn 50% of what that P5 conference makes---instead of 10% of what that P5 conference earned (which is what a G5 gets these days). That type of contract deal would likely tighten the financial gap between the P5 and G5.

The way this works is to take all the college football money in Div I and divide it evenly amongst all the schools. Let them compete with the same resources and let the cream rise to the top naturally. Obviously better attended teams and larger donor bases will have bigger budgets, but then it's the school doing for themselves rather than an artificial wall/ceiling preventing other schools from prospering.

Until they are ready to make that kind of commitment this plan will not work. And that sounds extremely socialist and I hate myself for writing it, but it is what's necessary to get enough votes to make something like that go through. All 64 G5 teams would be on board and just need a few crapped on P5s to agree at that point.

(02-13-2016 05:25 PM)monarx Wrote:  I like the idea of 8 conferences paired up with each other. 4 P and 4 G with the first and last place teams relegated up and down. Playing a year in the SEC or ACC would be a lot better than a bowl as a reward for a champion. Problem is, the CUSA champ will likely have a bunch of seniors they'd lose, and then get crushed the next year with a young team.

I had scribbled together something like that many many years ago, it was basically 5/5 (10 conferences), with 12 teams in each conference. (120 teams)

PAC->MWC
B12 -> SunBelt (or CUSA)
ACC -> Big East(Now AAC)
B1G -> MAC
SEC-> C-USA (or Sunbelt)

I can't remember which one I paired the SB and C-USA with.

But I think some teams had to be swapped around (I had issues with the SunBelt having such small stadiums, that they really didn't fit in, even if they got promoted)

But Coog nailed it, there was no way some AD"s would even come close to agreeing with any of this with budgetary constraints and such.

This is interesting stuff and I do think there is another round of conference shuffle on the horizon. Since the B12 doesn't have to go to 12, it is probably going to linger a few years before it shakes out. The one thing in the article that I don't think will happen is the relegation of low performing schools. I don't believe the 65 P5 members will give up the country club exclusivity they currently enjoy. I could see the implosion of one of the P5, say if Texas goes independent and the Big 12 or ACC gets poached by the others.

(02-13-2016 04:31 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  The concept of promotion/relegation is long overdue for sports in this country. And this format could work for college football. Historical conference affiliation would be replaced by current on-field quality as the primary factor for determining who plays where.

An extension of the approach mentioned in the article would be if the bottom team in each 8-team P5 conference division was relegated and each G5 conference division winner was promoted each year.

Not happening. People want to cheer on Big State U and failing that talk endlessly and complain about Big State U.

If $$$ is going to drive college football. And it is. Than the current conference line-ups will not bring the excitement and drive more big revenue. The article makes sense. School budgets can be based on a minimum guarantee by being a d1 school. Sports are important to tv/advertising . I can see this happening...but probably not in my life time ?

(02-14-2016 10:30 PM)MUther Wrote:  The way this works is to take all the college football money in Div I and divide it evenly amongst all the schools. Let them compete with the same resources and let the cream rise to the top naturally. Obviously better attended teams and larger donor bases will have bigger budgets, but then it's the school doing for themselves rather than an artificial wall/ceiling preventing other schools from prospering.

Until they are ready to make that kind of commitment this plan will not work. And that sounds extremely socialist and I hate myself for writing it, but it is what's necessary to get enough votes to make something like that go through. All 64 G5 teams would be on board and just need a few crapped on P5s to agree at that point.

I would love for this to happen, but don't think it would ever be considered. The P5 would break away and split it evenly between themselves before being faced with equally funded competition from all 1A teams. All G5 and a few P5 would likely vote for it, but the SEC would threaten to leave so the vote would be scrapped. They can't even get an early signing period approved when every single conference wants it except for the SEC. The NCAA is the SEC>P5>D1>everyone else.

If Higher Ed continues to be the fall back option for budget cuts then eventually a few schools will have to go the no-schollie football route or massive commitment to sports donation from alums. I think the P5s are just gonna wait it out, they now a lot of G5s can't continue the "keeping up with the Jones" plan forever and TV money isn't there to bail any of us out.

The siege is already working, programs are complaining about cost of travel. Suggesting consolidation efforts such as the great value you can get from ultra regional grouping. I would think the P5s would be happy if that happens, as it limits us to being no more than regional brands which would limit the athletic and academic reach of our institutions.