(11-22-2014 09:05 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  And again that's where you are dead wrong. There are more than just four. You stuck us with sunbelt teams. We left that level a long time ago. What about cincy byu Ucf etc. Too much treasure etc has been spent to be in a silver category. Our worst attendance is over 10k higher than the macs best. We average double what their best team does. If you don't see the difference than you don't understand the issues with those of us in purgatory

I think that's an example of an objection that seems to be simply the result of being overwhelmed by too much text explaining the format. (Sorry. There's a certain amount of elaboration, though, that just can't be helped.)

If anything, there's ADVANTAGE to being set-up in a weaker Silver Division. I'll let you find out why, if you care to investigate it.

We see a promotion/relegation suggestion every few weeks on this board as if it's some novel idea. Groups of schools should have 100% choice to associate themselves in conferences with whoever they want for money, academics, TV contracts, demographics, prestige and pretty any reason BUT last year's football team results. That's the "equitable" thing to do based on free market value instead of forcing schools to subsidize others financially and/or be grouped with schools that they don't consider to be their academic peers. (Not to mention that there are dozens of sports to deal with in conferences besides football.)

Frank, don't know if you meant "as if it's some novel idea" as a criticism, but if so, it's misplaced. The very first post of the thread indicates that this is the product of some long-term thinking. Nothing novel here. And of course, promotion/relegation caught-on in the places that it has because they were dealing with large numbers of teams with a limited calendar... so it's not only not novel, it's also not without some merit as a concept.

And again, there's a large gap between what is assumed to be here and what is being laid out. If you don't want to bother reading, that's completely understandable. I don't read very many others' proposals in this vein either because, I too, usually get a few words into it, and more often than not, determine that I think I know where it's going, and disengage.

The quick response to your assertions, though, is this. One, conferences still exist. Two, there is no subsidizing involved in this. And three, other sports are not affected.

(11-22-2014 01:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 01:02 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Started on this probably two summers ago, and have tweaked and tweaked over time.

Question: Do you consider the structure of NCAA basketball, with conference play followed by the 68-team tourney, to be 'equitable', and if not, why not?

I think the NCAA basketball format provides every possible contender a path to demonstrate their capacity to compete at the highest possible level... and yeah, that's far more equitable compared to anything that NCAA FBS football permits. Yes, there is a March Madness committee that determines at-large teams and seeding. But if you win your conference, you're in, so there is a path for everyone.

Football obviously is confounded by the calendar, which permits such a limited number of contests, and by the desire to somehow maintain the bowl structure while attempting to crown a champion purely from on-field performance.

So, whereas March Madness actually takes-in more teams than have an actual real shot at winning a title, the CFP committee does the opposite. And yet, no one is ignorant to the mother lode that is March Madness.

NCAA football would do well to copy the concept of broadening, not restricting access to that path.

So, you've heard of March Madness... it's time now to bring on December Delirium.

(11-23-2014 12:18 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 01:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 01:02 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Started on this probably two summers ago, and have tweaked and tweaked over time.

Question: Do you consider the structure of NCAA basketball, with conference play followed by the 68-team tourney, to be 'equitable', and if not, why not?

I think the NCAA basketball format provides every possible contender a path to demonstrate their capacity to compete at the highest possible level... and yeah, that's far more equitable compared to anything that NCAA FBS football permits. Yes, there is a March Madness committee that determines at-large teams and seeding. But if you win your conference, you're in, so there is a path for everyone.

Football obviously is confounded by the calendar, which permits such a limited number of contests, and by the desire to somehow maintain the bowl structure while attempting to crown a champion purely from on-field performance.

So, whereas March Madness actually takes-in more teams than have an actual real shot at winning a title, the CFP committee does the opposite. And yet, no one is ignorant to the mother lode that is March Madness.

NCAA football would do well to copy the concept of broadening, not restricting access to that path.

So, you've heard of March Madness... it's time now to bring on December Delirium.

So how about a 12-team playoff with the 11 conference champs and 1 at-large (can be an independent, a conference runner-up, anyone). First four seeds get buys to second round, second four play the first round to advance to the second round?

(11-23-2014 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So how about a 12-team playoff with the 11 conference champs and 1 at-large (can be an independent, a conference runner-up, anyone). First four seeds get buys to second round, second four play the first round to advance to the second round?

I think the main criticism you'd get with that is that they already feel like they're pushing it with a championship game, a semi-final and a final... three games all of which are to take place between the 2nd Saturday of December and the first full week of January. So, a championship game plus, for some teams, a play-in, then quarters, then semis, then a final as you've suggested is five games in that space. (That's not a position I personally hold necessarily, though, fwiw... but I respect the integrity of the desire to contain the season.)

Then, another standard that I've observed in framing this current proposal is for it all to be settled on the field. When you start getting into making human judgments with seeding and especially at-large berths, it's reasonable but not preferable.

Finally, there's a real, honest gray area that these decision-makers wrestle with, and that is, to somehow prevent the demise of the bowl system while raising up a playoff system. There is no full-proof way of knowing how much is too much infringement... maybe just maybe the 12-team tournament you describe isn't too much... but it's just a consideration that has some validity and to the degree that we don't impose on the bowl system much more than already is occurring, that's a good thing.

Those are my thoughts, fwiw.

The plan proposed here requires one more game than the current system.

Another feature as I've thought more about it, though it wasn't actually framed specifically for this purpose, is that as fans we'd almost innately find ourselves taking interest in and cheering for our other conference peers who aren't actually competing with us for a division title--with a view toward seeing as many of our own conference mates in the playoffs (and thus, making money for all of us) as possible.

Another issue is that by NCAA rules, only half the participants in a NCAA tournament first round can be AQs.

That means if all FBS is included that's a minimum of 22 participants which is not a great number for a tournament and is way too many anyway.

(11-22-2014 09:34 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 09:05 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  And again that's where you are dead wrong. There are more than just four. You stuck us with sunbelt teams. We left that level a long time ago. What about cincy byu Ucf etc. Too much treasure etc has been spent to be in a silver category. Our worst attendance is over 10k higher than the macs best. We average double what their best team does. If you don't see the difference than you don't understand the issues with those of us in purgatory

I think that's an example of an objection that seems to be simply the result of being overwhelmed by too much text explaining the format. (Sorry. There's a certain amount of elaboration, though, that just can't be helped.)

If anything, there's ADVANTAGE to being set-up in a weaker Silver Division. I'll let you find out why, if you care to investigate it.

I understand the premise. My point is it's a step back for us. We do not want to be labeled silver. We have put an average of 43k butts in seats this year. We don't want to play sunbelt, we don't want to watch it, and again don't want to be labeled silver. Relegation is fine but we don't want to begin in silver. There are plenty of p5s. We earned our bcs league a while ago and the league folded. Again I understand the system but it doesn't start many of us in the right league.

(11-23-2014 11:29 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 09:34 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  If anything, there's ADVANTAGE to being set-up in a weaker Silver Division. I'll let you find out why, if you care to investigate it.

I understand the premise. My point is it's a step back for us. We do not want to be labeled silver. We have put an average of 43k butts in seats this year. We don't want to play sunbelt, we don't want to watch it, and again don't want to be labeled silver. Relegation is fine but we don't want to begin in silver. There are plenty of p5s. We earned our bcs league a while ago and the league folded. Again I understand the system but it doesn't start many of us in the right league.

*scratches head*

I don't mean to be rude or critical, but I think you're missing something here.

First, of course, your school isn't in a contract conference. At the end of the day, the American might be better regarded than your former conference, but it's still a Group of Five conference.

This plan changes things in a big way for UCF b/c it gives UCF a pathway to being in a division with some of the best schools in all of college football.

What's more... this gives UCF a pathway to being in a division playing teams that are all current SEC and ACC schools through a division in which it seemingly ought to be extremely easy to win consecutive championships and, thus, have the chance to defeat the #8 Gold team and actually gain entry into a division/scheduling pod featuring those schools.

So, in fact, UCF might be one the greatest beneficiaries of this system that there is.

Do you see now what I was talking about?

Promotion/relegation systems for college are destined to fail. Teams have far too much turnover year to year and a hot team one year might very well be a dog the next (and vice-versa), meaning that while the team that gets the school "qualified" for the upper division may not have the consistency to remain there very long, and thus a flash in the pan team can end up displacing a team with far more history, tradition, and long-term success, who had a one-off down year.

(11-23-2014 03:41 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Promotion/relegation systems for college are destined to fail. Teams have far too much turnover year to year and a hot team one year might very well be a dog the next (and vice-versa), meaning that while the team that gets the school "qualified" for the upper division may not have the consistency to remain there very long, and thus a flash in the pan team can end up displacing a team with far more history, tradition, and long-term success, who had a one-off down year.

What does one consider "failing?"

Seems to me that just because a team legitimately does what they need to do to move up doesn't mean that they have some right to stay there... anymore than a team that has history has some right.

I once ran an Excel sheet looking at the historic likelihood that a given team would boom then bust... I can look it up, but it's been a couple of years... but fwiw, I can recall clearly that the numbers showed pretty distinctly that, relatively speaking, teams rarely win or lose more than a couple of games than they had the year before... again, fwiw.

And again, I have to ask not to be considered rude or abrasive when I assert that the text explaining the whole of the concept probably isn't getting read, based on the response.

That's because, just because a team ends up getting relegated in this particular system doesn't mean that the team doesn't have a legitimate chance from that first time after relegation to still making the playoffs and conceivably playing for a national championship just as-if they'd never been relegated.

Promotion/relegation has merit, and particularly so in a system where (a) it's not a death sentence, but rather a team still has a path to actually competing for the holy grail, and (b) promotion is just as easily/likely attained as is relegation--it's not like a fish trap, where, once you're in, it's hard to find your way out.

(11-22-2014 09:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 01:02 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Started on this probably two summers ago, and have tweaked and tweaked over time.

Don't read this and mistake me for someone who imagines this could actually be enacted any time soon. But it at least presents some elements that attempt to get us closer to a coherent system where, in spite of 128-ish schools and a limited calendar to fit all of it into... with this or something like this, it is all... all... decided on the field.

Notably, it only adds one additional game to the path than is currently on the calendar. But, like anything this ambitious, it certainly does require a few paradigm changes, some of which are going to be instantly lampooned, I know. It's the nature of the beast. And a beast it is.

Criticism... constructive, especially... is good. But hopefully some will read the fine print and find a lot to like, or at least, some aspects of it that they like... and will comment and say as much... we'll see.

Respectfully, ND in that grid accomplishes exactly none of its goals in playing sports.

In my opinion, you would have to duct tape a 12 gauge shotgun to Jack Swarbrick's forehead to get him to listen to that idea.

Point was well-taken, and fwiw, I'd like to think that an element that now allows ND to trapse through all 7 other divisions provides ample "national schedule" to Swarbrick's liking... ditto the Army and BYU athletic directors as well.

(11-23-2014 02:21 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 11:29 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 09:34 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  If anything, there's ADVANTAGE to being set-up in a weaker Silver Division. I'll let you find out why, if you care to investigate it.

I understand the premise. My point is it's a step back for us. We do not want to be labeled silver. We have put an average of 43k butts in seats this year. We don't want to play sunbelt, we don't want to watch it, and again don't want to be labeled silver. Relegation is fine but we don't want to begin in silver. There are plenty of p5s. We earned our bcs league a while ago and the league folded. Again I understand the system but it doesn't start many of us in the right league.

*scratches head*

I don't mean to be rude or critical, but I think you're missing something here.

First, of course, your school isn't in a contract conference. At the end of the day, the American might be better regarded than your former conference, but it's still a Group of Five conference.

This plan changes things in a big way for UCF b/c it gives UCF a pathway to being in a division with some of the best schools in all of college football.

What's more... this gives UCF a pathway to being in a contract conference through a division in which it seemingly ought to be extremely easy to win consecutive championships and, thus, have the chance to defeat the #8 Gold team and actually gain entry into a division/scheduling pod featuring those schools.

So, in fact, UCF might be one the greatest beneficiaries of this system that there is.

Do you see now what I was talking about?

I understand what your driving at however I would rather stay in this league. Part of any membership is the prestige of the member institutions that are considered peers. I would rather take my chances as is for now. My suggestion is even divisions and have teams mixed by region ala nfl style. SOS etc would improve and there would be plenty of relevant content with a more even playing field. Again I applaud you for your work. You created a gold division for a reason but some us feel there are more golds. The other thing is how do you account for the cyclical nature of recruiting and development?

(11-23-2014 04:01 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 03:41 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Promotion/relegation systems for college are destined to fail. Teams have far too much turnover year to year and a hot team one year might very well be a dog the next (and vice-versa), meaning that while the team that gets the school "qualified" for the upper division may not have the consistency to remain there very long, and thus a flash in the pan team can end up displacing a team with far more history, tradition, and long-term success, who had a one-off down year.

What does one consider "failing?"

Seems to me that just because a team legitimately does what they need to do to move up doesn't mean that they have some right to stay there... anymore than a team that has history has some right.

I once ran an Excel sheet looking at the historic likelihood that a given team would boom then bust... I can look it up, but it's been a couple of years... but fwiw, I can recall clearly that the numbers showed pretty distinctly that, relatively speaking, teams rarely win or lose more than a couple of games than they had the year before... again, fwiw.

And again, I have to ask not to be considered rude or abrasive when I assert that the text explaining the whole of the concept probably isn't getting read, based on the response.

That's because, just because a team ends up getting relegated in this particular system doesn't mean that the team doesn't have a legitimate chance from that first time after relegation to still making the playoffs and conceivably playing for a national championship just as-if they'd never been relegated.

Promotion/relegation has merit, and particularly so in a system where (a) it's not a death sentence, but rather a team still has a path to actually competing for the holy grail, and (b) promotion is just as easily/likely attained as is relegation--it's not like a fish trap, where, once you're in, it's hard to find your way out.

It's not that we aren't reading your case study. I just believe as long as there is inequity you end up with the same problem. Our plight is a perfect example. It would take many years for many of the programs you mentioned in silver to be able to build the infrastructure and fanbase to compete regularly. That's my problem with it. We have done the work.

I wouldn't pretend to know for certain whether any one person had or hadn't (ie, read everything and digested it). But you have to admit that when I've brought it up, there's been something said that led to the possibility being cited. I can speak for myself... and did... that it's admittedly not been my routine to read this kind of thing from someone else... hypocritical as that might be.

As to the rest of that... I think equality of opportunity is what can be asked and what can be expected... equality of outcomes, though, can't be, nor would I want (as someone alleged earlier in this thread) to offend the basic free market principles that reward achievement.

If what you're saying you want is merely competing in the Am, okay. I mean, to me, all you've actually gained is an annual date with Cincinnati. No offense, but there's just not much else that's all that desirable, at least to me, an outsider. I would hope most UCF fans aspire to something better. I would think they do. But, who knows, maybe they don't (?).

If they do, then it follows that you can't very well expect to play at the next level until you've acquired the opportunity to do that... at present, 2/3 of your schedule can't be at the next level, and realistically, you're only going to play, at most, 1/6 of your schedule with teams at that next level... so, having that opportunity is huge.

This, as you know, provides that opportunity.

I read the plan again. I see that you made it so that the team getting promoted has to win the sliver division two consecutive years AND beat the #8 team in the gold division , yet that 1st place silver team could still end up playing for the national title even if it loses to the #8 gold team. Why have such an arbitrary game make the difference between moving up or not. In this scenario, it is almost more advantageous to be in the top of the silver division than the bottom of the gold. I don't believe anyone would go for such a setup. It's definitely forward thinking, but it's got some things that make it unattractive to TV partners, conference affiliations, and schools on both sides of the P5 line.

For starters, what a huge advantage it is for the 2nd place gold team to get to play the silver champion, whereas the 1st place gold team has to play the 3rd place gold team. I think you'd see more teams fighting for 2nd place than 1st, which leads to tanking and a cheapening of the product.

First... very much appreciate the thoughtful reply. Hope you won't mind if I respond directly... and hopefully, you'll understand it as also respectfully and politely... to what you laid out...

(11-23-2014 05:21 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I read the plan again. I see that you made it so that the team getting promoted has to win the sliver division two consecutive years AND beat the #8 team in the gold division , yet that 1st place silver team could still end up playing for the national title even if it loses to the #8 gold team.

Um. Well, yeah. If they play for the national title, then that means ON THE FIELD, they eventually went to the playoffs and defeated some teams much, much better than the #8 gold team.

How do I justify that?

Well, again... they accomplished on the field what had to be accomplished when it had to be accomplished... it wasn't left to a group of "names" to decide their worthiness. Every other team had the same opportunity they had.

And to further ground that point...

To object to that outcome is to beg the question if anyone suggested the NFL should change its format after a horrid NY Giants team ended up playing a Super Bowl against a nearly-perfect NE Patriots team. That team, by that logic, had no right to be in that game... let alone to have the opportunity to engineer a fluke of a win, and end up with the trophy.

Right?

(11-23-2014 05:21 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  In this scenario, it is almost more advantageous to be in the top of the silver division than the bottom of the gold.

Pardon the criticism, but to me, this statement epitomizes contract conference bias.

Put into context, look at the four leading non-contract teams today... Marshall, Boise, Colo St and whoever... and tell me how one would make the case that 3 of the 4 of those shouldn't be in a better position than any given contract conference last-place team?

Accomplished teams with resources should be given additional regard. I think everyone is sober to that reality.

But accomplished teams with lesser resources should have a route... they should have a chance...

Economically speaking, it's what makes March Madness both special and so very profitable.

But ethically speaking, it's right... and particularly when the talent inventory is so broad and scholarship limits ensure that many teams beyond those in contract conferences can offer some substantial competition on the field.

(11-23-2014 05:21 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I don't believe anyone would go for such a setup.

We agree. Today, we agree.

If you'd asked me 10 years ago if I could ever conceive of an automatic berth for a Northern Illinois-level team in one of the primo bowls... I'd have nodded "no."

But the long-term reality is that, bit by bit, just as we've inched toward racial equality over time, we're also inching toward, at least, a more appropriate level of equality in collegiate sports.

I do rule out this set-up. But I don't rule out anything 20 years from now.

(11-23-2014 05:21 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  It's definitely forward thinking, but it's got some things that make it unattractive to TV partners, conference affiliations, and schools on both sides of the P5 line.

Glad you see some "forward thinking" to it.

I get the "unattractive" part, but only in the context that old white guys would have liked to have held their societal and political power over the years. That is, equating contract conference schools to old white guys. No one's suggesting they should be removed from a seat at the table as long as it's earned. But what they have currently are guaranteed seats no matter how they perform. That's not how we do things in America... or at least, we aren't proud of it when we do.

TV partners... the networks lose nothing here. They gain nothing, but they also lose nothing. It's a wash.

Conference affiliations? Your members have the opportunity to win not just one but even three or four championships. It's a paradigm change. This retains conference affiliations, while placing teams into divisions that amount to "scheduling pods."

Here's another way to think about it. If you run a horse farm, do you prefer to have a bunch of in-house races that eliminate all of your horses, or do you prefer to enter multiple horses in multiple races that allow your stable to establish superiority over the others?

(11-23-2014 05:18 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  I wouldn't pretend to know for certain whether any one person had or hadn't (ie, read everything and digested it). But you have to admit that when I've brought it up, there's been something said that led to the possibility being cited. I can speak for myself... and did... that it's admittedly not been my routine to read this kind of thing from someone else... hypocritical as that might be.

As to the rest of that... I think equality of opportunity is what can be asked and what can be expected... equality of outcomes, though, can't be, nor would I want (as someone alleged earlier in this thread) to offend the basic free market principles that reward achievement.

If what you're saying you want is merely competing in the Am, okay. I mean, to me, all you've actually gained is an annual date with Cincinnati. No offense, but there's just not much else that's all that desirable, at least to me, an outsider. I would hope most UCF fans aspire to something better. I would think they do. But, who knows, maybe they don't (?).

If they do, then it follows that you can't very well expect to play at the next level until you've acquired the opportunity to do that... at present, 2/3 of your schedule can't be at the next level, and realistically, you're only going to play, at most, 1/6 of your schedule with teams at that next level... so, having that opportunity is huge.

This, as you know, provides that opportunity.

Again you are missing my point. Second your post is condescending in tone. Quite frankly we were good enough to join a bcs conference and would have been in the beast in 2005 had our arena been updated. To use your logic you have three former power conf teams in conf and the rest can be interchanged with the lower portions of the 5. We have the resources, budget, facilities, fanbase etc to be in a p5. Right now we have a conf that is a differentiator. In that setup the brand is equitable with sunbelt teams. Our brand is in a better position now and unless your planning on paying Alabama the same as Tulane there is no advantage for the short term. The ability to go undefeated two years in a row in cfb is difficult and we have expended too many resources to get where we are. This includes weekly time on tv and a higher paycheck relative to other g5s. Unless the pay scale is the same for everyone we are better off the way we are and pushing for inclusion. I also feel based on your post that the very bias that you are trying to avoid is built into the system. The difference is we would be playing in a trashy conf that nobody would want to come see. Collective bargaining is the only way that this would be viable for a school on the cusp. Of we all get paid the same then I would say yes otherwise it doesn't make much sense for us to give up the brand equity.

(11-22-2014 10:32 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Frank, don't know if you meant "as if it's some novel idea" as a criticism, but if so, it's misplaced. The very first post of the thread indicates that this is the product of some long-term thinking. Nothing novel here. And of course, promotion/relegation caught-on in the places that it has because they were dealing with large numbers of teams with a limited calendar... so it's not only not novel, it's also not without some merit as a concept.

And again, there's a large gap between what is assumed to be here and what is being laid out. If you don't want to bother reading, that's completely understandable. I don't read very many others' proposals in this vein either because, I too, usually get a few words into it, and more often than not, determine that I think I know where it's going, and disengage.

The quick response to your assertions, though, is this. One, conferences still exist. Two, there is no subsidizing involved in this. And three, other sports are not affected.

What I meant by it not being novel is that we have seen many promotion/relegation proposals here. It's always posited as some "fair" way for G5 schools to move up and the "undeserving" P5 schools (G5 fans seem to love targeting Wake Forest and Washington State for their ire) to move down. Your proposal might be well-thought out and, as the writer of treatises on various playoff system and conference realignment proposals, I'm the last person to criticize people for putting a lot of time and effort on college sports issues. However, no matter how well thought out the proposal might be, it still comes down to a promotion/relegation system that's anathema to how college sports works.

The University of Michigan does not want to ever even have the slightest chance to be associated in the same conference with Western Michigan. Period. It wouldn't matter if Western Michigan wins every single game for the next 5 years straight. By the same token, the University of Florida does not want to ever even have the slightest chance to be associated in the same conference with FIU... and we can go down the line with about 40 or 50 other examples. The entire point is that all of the off-the-field stuff is MORE important than the on-the-field results when it comes to the power conferences - academic prestige, TV markets, recruiting areas, etc. Truly powerful leagues want to know that you still bring value to the table even if you go 0-12 in a season.

Is it snobby and elitist? Of course it is... which is what the entire academic profession revolves around. That's why tens of thousands of straight A students with top test scores apply to Harvard every year, of which over 95% of them will be rejected, and then pay about $300,000 over 4 years for the privilege of going there if they're lucky enough to get in. Meanwhile, you can learn the exact same material Harvard students are learning by watching online courses for free. What are these kids paying for? The brand name of the school. Those brands are what all of these universities are trading upon, and the ones that have the credentials want to associate themselves with other elite brands. That applies in the athletic sphere for those that actually have real poaching power (i.e. the Big Ten), whether pure football-focused fans like it or not. Michigan wants to be with other similar institutional *brands* (which is MUCH different than similar football *teams*). Same thing with Florida. Same thing USC. And so on and so forth. That's why any scenario that attempts to group schools by on-the-field football results in promotion/relegation is a fantasy beyond fantasy.

(11-23-2014 08:14 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  Again you are missing my point. Second your post is condescending in tone. Quite frankly we were good enough to join a bcs conference and would have been in the beast in 2005 had our arena been updated. To use your logic you have three former power conf teams in conf and the rest can be interchanged with the lower portions of the 5. We have the resources, budget, facilities, fanbase etc to be in a p5. Right now we have a conf that is a differentiator. In that setup the brand is equitable with sunbelt teams. Our brand is in a better position now and unless your planning on paying Alabama the same as Tulane there is no advantage for the short term. The ability to go undefeated two years in a row in cfb is difficult and we have expended too many resources to get where we are. This includes weekly time on tv and a higher paycheck relative to other g5s. Unless the pay scale is the same for everyone we are better off the way we are and pushing for inclusion. I also feel based on your post that the very bias that you are trying to avoid is built into the system. The difference is we would be playing in a trashy conf that nobody would want to come see. Collective bargaining is the only way that this would be viable for a school on the cusp. Of we all get paid the same then I would say yes otherwise it doesn't make much sense for us to give up the brand equity.

I mean no condescension.

Regarding your assertion that you have the credentials to be affiliated with a contract conference, and that this would represent a step back... I'm not sure what you're saying I'm missing. Honest assessment. I fully understand UCF as a "school on the cusp." But you're going nowhere in the long term because there's no contract conference that's motivated to expand, and if history is a teacher, there won't be any motivated to even consider it until the contract conference TV contracts conclude in about 10 years. Expansion revolves around TV contracts and who figures they're better off with who. No one cares how far you've come. They act out of self-interest, not out of what a given school "deserves."

I also detect a misnomer here. You speak of the division as its own conference, but this is a paradigm change... I've tried to delineate the division as more of a scheduling pod... the conferences, as stated, remain intact, and with one of their major roles being to negotiate Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV contracts for their membership. That's important because it seems like you might be saying that you're concerned that the division schools would bring you down; however, in fact, your AAC TV contract would continue to feature in-division games b/t AAC opponents, as well as some out-of-division games b/t AAC opponents, as well as a built-in inventory of SEC (where UCF and USF are concerned) and other contract conference opponents.

And that's just the short-term implication. Again, I come back to the point that you can "push for inclusion" all you want, but the road doesn't exist as things stand, and there's no real prospect that they will anytime soon. I never say never, but based on what we know, that's just the reality. A system like this... long-term... gives you a road to the destination you're wanting to go to. And once you arrive, if you deserve to continue, ie earn it, you'll continue to occupy a division space beside SEC teams. That's gold, pun somewhat intended, for any Go5 school. All anyone wants is the systemic opportunity to earn a place.