(06-15-2016 03:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (06-15-2016 09:58 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote: (06-15-2016 09:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (06-14-2016 10:31 PM)IHAVETRIED Wrote: I propose we nominate 8 teams from the P5 that should be 'relegated', and 8 teams from the G5 that would be 'promoted'.
I suggest that there are zero rules of play, you say what you want for ANY reason you may have. Personal or your own Logic. Pedigree, Academics, Financial, Market, Performance, Affinity, Hatred, Love.
My choice: absolutely zero change. Conferences and schools should be free to associate themselves with whoever they want based on whatever criteria that they want without any type of forced promotion/relegation system. If the Big Ten would rather have Rutgers even if they go winless in both football and basketball because of academic and TV market reasons, then that's their choice and they shouldn't be forced to take any school that they don't want to associate with based on on-the-field/court reasons.
Frank, I completely agree with your sentiment, in all its aspects. But my thesis is that it is a forced relegation/promotion. As we know, the discussion is hypothetical. It is a Delphi process that compels thinking.
I get it, but this type of thread always devolves into fans of G5 schools complaining how they should be in the club and then whining about Wake Forest, Rutgers, Iowa State, Washington State, et. al. There's no "thinking" involved outside of people manipulating the criteria to justify why someone's favorite school should be in a power league while Wake Forest should be kicked out (e.g. ECU fans will always say that attendance matters more, UConn fans will always say that being the best academic option that is also near-ish to the NYC market matters more, Houston fans will always say that the Big 12 is losing ground to the SEC in their market, UCF fans will always try to make sheer enrollment size as more of a priority, etc.).
Usually a Delphi process starts out as a mess and then ultimately results in participants energetically discussing and then finally agreeing, usually reluctantly, on what matters most and in what comparative proportions. In this case it is just for fun, and we don't have the benefit, or the stress, of sitting down in the same room together.
The process can also be started by simply agreeing on the important measures or metrics and then placing them in an agreed order.
In the case of P's and G's, it is arguable that football matters more than basketball, at this point, for good reason, in 90-95% of the cases. But not always.
Also, the quantity of living alumni is a very key factor. A school with 50,000 living alumni has less pent-up/built-in support than one with 350,000. A very poorly performing team with a huge number of alumni seems to be more desirable to a conference than a great performing team with a very small number of alumni.
Recent Football (
and basketball) success on the field/floor is a factor. The discussion here would generally be about just how to 'weight' the years or eras of success. And just how to weight and count wins and losses over weak, medium and strong teams. Ranking Systems and Ratings Systems give us a proxy. We would likely find that on the field/floor success is not a good proxy for market success.
Athletic Dept Revenue becomes a proxy of sorts for 'success'. But not at all perfect. And Revenue is elastic with respect to Conference affiliation.
Endowment size is a significant proxy for success. At least it allows the capacity for 'investment'. Endowment size and Living Alumni count are self proxies.
Potential Eyeballs is a major measure. And there, relative 'Flagship' status and eyeball sharing become the important metrics. The available eyeballs must be apportioned.
Market under or oversaturation is a measure. This is a relative and subjective imprecise term.
New markets are a measure. This is also relative and imprecise.
Academic 'success' is a good measure. But it is very subjective.
Enrollment count is a great measure, and easy to find, but in and of itself it only gives a hint of whether a strong athletic program can be built and sustained.
Average Attendance and stadium/arena capacity utilization is a great measure. It is another relative support proxy.
Pro/College market sharing is an important measure. A college team in a small region having one or more major pro teams has built-in counter bias. Several college teams and pro teams sharing the same medium-sized geographic market usually represent 'oversupply'.
So, so many measures. At least another dozen that are important.
Most of us think about all these things without realizing that we do.
Many P5's would not rightfully measure up to be P5's if the entire landscape were recast today with new 'rules'.
This is simply an opportunity for those who think they are deserving to let off some steam and kick some 'undeserving' folks off the island. In theory. For whatever valid or in-valid reason they want.