(06-06-2020 12:18 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I will say this for forever and a fortnight: Pro/rel cannot work in American college athletics.

Unlike European clubs, programs that move up don't get money to upgrade their rosters, and on top of that, usually G5-level teams succeed when they have senior-heavy lineups. So the moveups will play stiffer competition in a rebuilding year. Meanwhile, programs that fall a level will lose players that don't want to slum it against weaker competition. Recruiting, already tilted toward the top programs, will be even more unbalanced since they'll be able to play the stability card: Oh, we're not going anywhere, but Ohio? Who's to say they won't drop down next year? You don't know what conference you'll be in next year until the current season is over, which not only screws with recruiting but scheduling.

It's great that pro/rel works in the rest of the world. For a variety of reasons, it'll never happen in the U.S., and certainly not in college sports.

Not to mention the massive athletic budget implications. How can an AD budget when his revenue can drop drastically due to relegation.

(06-06-2020 12:18 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I will say this for forever and a fortnight: Pro/rel cannot work in American college athletics.

Unlike European clubs, programs that move up don't get money to upgrade their rosters

Though the prospect of promotion sounds dreamy to fans who want their team to "move up", the reality is churn -- in most countries there's a group of 5 or 6 teams in the second division with a realistic chance at promotion, and a group of 5 or 6 in the top division with a realistic danger of relegation, and they just churn between the two. Teams that are promoted usually get relegated after a year or three at the most, and usually become one of the second division's favorites to be re-promoted.

About two-thirds of the teams in each top league have no realistic chance of being relegated because even those in the middle class spend heavily to stay out of the "relegation zone". The few promoted teams that stick in the top division "for good" do so because some billionaire bought the team and pumped an insane amount of money into it. So, unless a billionaire oil baron is going to buy your favorite college football team and spend his fortune on the team, fans wouldn't enjoy pro/rel, even if college football became just as professionalized as European soccer.

The MWC views themselves as a step above the other 3–no way they go for anything that puts them at the same level.

C-USA and the SBC just have to figure out that a reshuffle makes sense and saves dollars.

(06-06-2020 02:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Though the prospect of promotion sounds dreamy to fans who want their team to "move up", the reality is churn -- in most countries there's a group of 5 or 6 teams in the second division with a realistic chance at promotion, and a group of 5 or 6 in the top division with a realistic danger of relegation, and they just churn between the two.

Good. This is a good thing. I'd rather watch annual games of Boise/Houston than Boise/SJSU. That's the entire point, to create better matchups.

(06-06-2020 02:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 12:18 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Unlike European clubs, programs that move up don't get money to upgrade their rosters, and on top of that, usually G5-level teams succeed when they have senior-heavy lineups. So the moveups will play stiffer competition in a rebuilding year.

Not to mention the massive athletic budget implications. How can an AD budget when his revenue can drop drastically due to relegation.

I think Wedge got it right, above. We'd mostly see stability. You can evaluate teams based on 4 year averages. After 2-3 years, the AD would have a very good idea of where they stand & plan accordingly.

OOC scheduling could get dicey. But the G5 conferences could work together to mitigate the hassles. Something like the Big 10/ACC challenge, where they agree to play each other OOC, en masse.

Mountain West:
Quad 1 - Hawaii (football only)/Seattle (non-football), San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State
Quad 2 - Nevada, UNLV, BYU, Boise State
Quad 3 - Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming, Utah State
Quad 4 - UTEP, New Mexico State, UTSA, New Mexico

American Athletic:
Quad 1 - Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Navy (football only)/Wichita State (non-football)
Quad 2 - Memphis, Rice, Tulane, East Carolina
Quad 3 - Temple, UMass, UConn, Army (football only)/VCU (non-football)
Quad 4 - UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Marshall

Mid-American:
West - Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennesee, Ball State, Northern Illinois, Miami (OH), Western Michigan
East - Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Toledo, Bowling Green, Ohio, Kent, Akron, Buffalo

Sun Belt:
West - North Texas, Texas State, ULM, Louisiana
South - Southern Miss, South Alabama, Troy, UAB
North - Coastal Carolina, Charlotte, App State, Old Dominion
East - FAU, FIU, Georgia Southern, Georgia State

Why would the MWC want anything to do with this eastern minor league crap?
The AAC can’t even get any of them to join so you think the MAC, SB and CUSA can? Lol

Relegation based on 3- or 4- year averages would slow the “churn” so that teams who move up have their average “padded” by low level victories. And, the plan in the OP has sufficient flexibility for rivalries to be kept; ADs would also have a stable rotation of 4-5 and 5-4 home-away schedules for planning future OOC games.

Revenue sharing is one of the easier hurdles as money is quite fungible, no need to think all 4 would be given equal shares.

While the MW views themselves as above the other 3, that goes hand-in-hand with the flight risk of schools like BSU, AFA, CSU, and SDSU. This could be seen as a way to mitigate that, perhaps replacing the “Boise Bonus” with a general bonus to teams in the upper conference. The MW could certainly ply leverage over the other 3 by having the entire West Super division to themselves (perhaps 5 West - 5 East) or are least guaranteeing 4 MW teams in the upper conference.

(06-06-2020 04:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The MWC views themselves as a step above the other 3–no way they go for anything that puts them at the same level.

C-USA and the SBC just have to figure out that a reshuffle makes sense and saves dollars.

This is exactly right - MW considers themselves a step above the other 3, C-USA and SBC consider themselves a step above MAC.

As far as C-USA and SBC shuffling I used to think it should be about limiting geographic footprint (saving money) but now I think it should be about football (making money).

C-USA West: Arkansas St, Louisiana Tech, Louisiana Lafayette, Southern Miss, UAB, Troy
C-USA East: Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee, Marshall, Appalachian St, Georgia Southern, FAU

Sun Belt West: UTEP, North Texas, Texas St, UTSA, Rice, Louisiana Monroe
Sun Belt East: South Alabama, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Coastal Carolina, Georgia St, FIU

The new C-USA would be more comparable to the MW while the new SBC would be more comparable to the MAC.

EDITED: To swap UAB & Troy with Western Kentucky & Middle Tennessee. Divisions now match SEC.

(06-08-2020 10:31 PM)C00G Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 04:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The MWC views themselves as a step above the other 3–no way they go for anything that puts them at the same level.

C-USA and the SBC just have to figure out that a reshuffle makes sense and saves dollars.

This is exactly right - MW considers themselves a step above the other 3, C-USA and SBC consider themselves a step above MAC.

MWC is playing the MAC in two bowl games next cycle including the Arizona Bowl with a high selection.

MAC has come a long way since the 80's to look the part of a real FBS conference.

Add to PAC XII: Hawaii, SDSU, SJSU, Fresno St., BYU, UNLV, Boise St., Nevada

Add to MWC: UTEP, UNT, TX ST., UTSA, Rice, NM ST, ULM, ULL, La Tech, ARK ST., Tulsa, Tulane

Add to BIG XII: Houston, SMU

Remanents merge into a single SBC