(09-20-2023 08:13 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(09-19-2023 08:17 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-19-2023 06:54 PM)RamblinRedWolf Wrote:  Promotion/relegation structure for Pac2 & MWC?

Love this outside the box thinking and think there's real potential to create something better than just another G5 conference

This idea, if it comes to fruition, should send cold chills through the athletic depts of schools like Vandy, NWestern, Indiana, Purdue, & several more.

Honestly, IF this does happen (assuming financial impacts are minimal), things could get interesting.

ACC, B12, B1G, SEC split into an A-tier and B-tier within their conference.

G5 splits into 4 A-tiers and 4 B-tiers presumably within 4 conferences.

Top 9 champs (group winners regardless of A or B tiers) make the CFP + 6 at-large. (Likely 8 champs from the P4 + 1 G5 with most at-larges from from P4 A-tier).

Top 4 champs get a double bye. Remaining 5 champs get a single bye.

Conferences can probably do 3 CCGs now for Top of A, Bottom of A (loser relegated), Top of B (winner Promoted).
- Alternate, 1st is promoted/last relegated, 2nd & 3rd play for promotion/relegation.

No one relegated to G5 or promoted to P4.

Likely doesn't happen, but this could be interesting.

IMHO, there will be more interest in pro/rel as conferences get larger. It’s innovative of the PAC2 & MWC to have this discussion. The big issues are how to distribute the money and schedule end-of-season games[/u]. It won’t take long for media to monetize these changes and incentivize other conferences to follow suit.

If they can get at least 16 teams in the two conferences, then television rights should increase for football. Winner of the lower division automatically gets promoted; and last place finisher in the upper conference gets demoted. Initially, pro/rel games could be the 12th game of the season and scheduled for December: a) The number #2 team in the lower conference can host a game against the second-worst finisher in the upper conference; while b) the third-lowest finisher in the upper conference can host a game against the #3 team from the lower conference. It provides new media content when college football only has Army/Navy or FCS tournament competition ongoing…it’s a unique opportunity and window for content. The top conference still has a CCG. The top finisher of the lower conference is still eligible for the CFP/bowls. Eventually, you ask the NCAA to classify pro/rel as “bowl” games.

(09-20-2023 01:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-19-2023 08:31 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  People are ignoring the real problem with the proposal - you can't have pro/rel along with a closed system of teams within a specific region. What is needed is an open system where all teams in a single sport are pooled into one collection, divided into divisions. There is no real barrier to entry other than lack of money, support, interest, etc.. The barrier to entry is the worst aspect of closed systems - they artificially inflate prices while entrenching mediocrity in a sport such as they have to impose various manipulations on the competition aspect, such as drafts or lottery picks.

Yes, in an open system there may emerge superteams but these don't always last - players age out, ownership changes, new coaches, etc..

People being used to closed systems is why pro/rel won't happen anytime soon. That, and the stoopid faux nationalism from some fans (no soccer scores, herp derp!).

Interesting, and I agree about not having pro/rel in a regional closed system. But about the bolded .... IMO European Soccer does have a pretty entrenched super team problem. IIRC, Bayern Munich has won the Bundesliga literally like 10 straight years. I think Juventus won Serie A like 9 in a row recently, and in the 1990s and 2000s, Man United won about 13 premier titles in 20 years, and now Manchester City has won 5 of 6 or something like that. All of these put the recent Patriots dynasty of the NFL to shame.

Yeah, nothing lasts forever. The Man United dynasty did end about 10 years ago, but goodness gracious after 13 titles in 20 years and a pile of other trophies?

And I believe all of these teams have been historically successful, with the exception of Manchester City. Teams like Barcelona, Man United, Juventus, Madrid, Bayern, have been winning a lot for a while, I believe.

Nothing like that has ever happened in the NFL, the record for most titles in a row is 3, and hasn't been done since the 1960s.

The super teams are a different order of magnitude in the Euro soccer leagues, IMO. It seems to me that while theoretically the pro/rel allows for more "churn", in reality franchises get ensconced near the top, and then it is largely self-perpetuating - Bayern wins, and the top players want to win, so Bayern is able to sign more top players than its Bundes rivals, and so Bayern keeps winning, etc.

IIRC, one of the Euro soccer rules that keeps the top teams at the top is I think there is a rule (I think, correct me if I am wrong) that says you can only spend as much money on players as you are earning from club operations, or something like that. IMO this ensconces the top teams - Man U earns a billion a year in revenue, so it is allowed to spend way more than a club that has $50m in revenue, and so it can buy much better players, coaches, etc. that keep it winning, and making more $$$. How does the smaller club ever compete with that?

Here's how:

IMO, if an Elon Musk wants to buy a Wrexham and dump a billion in to the club to buy players, that should be A-OK. That can shake things up in a hurry.

All just MO.

I don't disagree with the points made here. The real debate is between open versus closed systems. There are tradeoffs for both.

The trade off for open systems is the possibility of entrenched superteams. However, no one wants to talk about the downsides of closed systems which are the high barriers to entry and the disincentives to innovation. Just recently, the Milwaukee Brewers threatened to leave if the state didn't agree to spend hundreds of millions to renovate the stadium. They can do that because of cartel power. It's grossly unfair to fans and cities across the country to be subjected to this madness. This doesn't happen under an open system because someone would just come in and start a new team and get started if an old team disappears without having to spend gobsmacks for the "privilege." That's real market power that the good ol boys fear.

Why should I have to spend $2 billion to start a team if I can buy a current team for, let's say, $20 to 30 million on a lower level to then spend some more to bring better players? It'll take time and patience to get to the top level but I'd save money in the longer term as long as I don't overspend on mediocre players.

It's rather interesting to see fans of G programs take the same attitude as fans of second division English teams in soccer, who still dream of being at the top level.

Darts and wall.

(09-19-2023 10:40 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  So I'll probably have this for next week, but the actual reason this is being discussed in the MWC/Pac2 is because it was being discussed FIRST in the WCC and Big West for sports like softball, baseball and vball, and a few ADs reached out to the MWC about discussing it with basketball

It's probably never going to happen, but the more I got in the weeds about it with those ADs, the more I think it actually would be a good idea?

I feel like promotion and relegation really really works best for regionalization outside of football.

Say SFA wants to go all in on basketball. Shouldn't winning a bunch of games get you the best possible opponents in your region?

Meanwhile Sam goes all in on baseball and softball. Lamar says we're gonna be the top team in volleyball etc.

(09-20-2023 03:35 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 01:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-19-2023 08:31 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  People are ignoring the real problem with the proposal - you can't have pro/rel along with a closed system of teams within a specific region. What is needed is an open system where all teams in a single sport are pooled into one collection, divided into divisions. There is no real barrier to entry other than lack of money, support, interest, etc.. The barrier to entry is the worst aspect of closed systems - they artificially inflate prices while entrenching mediocrity in a sport such as they have to impose various manipulations on the competition aspect, such as drafts or lottery picks.

Yes, in an open system there may emerge superteams but these don't always last - players age out, ownership changes, new coaches, etc..

People being used to closed systems is why pro/rel won't happen anytime soon. That, and the stoopid faux nationalism from some fans (no soccer scores, herp derp!).

Interesting, and I agree about not having pro/rel in a regional closed system. But about the bolded .... IMO European Soccer does have a pretty entrenched super team problem. IIRC, Bayern Munich has won the Bundesliga literally like 10 straight years. I think Juventus won Serie A like 9 in a row recently, and in the 1990s and 2000s, Man United won about 13 premier titles in 20 years, and now Manchester City has won 5 of 6 or something like that. All of these put the recent Patriots dynasty of the NFL to shame.

Yeah, nothing lasts forever. The Man United dynasty did end about 10 years ago, but goodness gracious after 13 titles in 20 years and a pile of other trophies?

And I believe all of these teams have been historically successful, with the exception of Manchester City. Teams like Barcelona, Man United, Juventus, Madrid, Bayern, have been winning a lot for a while, I believe.

Nothing like that has ever happened in the NFL, the record for most titles in a row is 3, and hasn't been done since the 1960s.

The super teams are a different order of magnitude in the Euro soccer leagues, IMO. It seems to me that while theoretically the pro/rel allows for more "churn", in reality franchises get ensconced near the top, and then it is largely self-perpetuating - Bayern wins, and the top players want to win, so Bayern is able to sign more top players than its Bundes rivals, and so Bayern keeps winning, etc.

IIRC, one of the Euro soccer rules that keeps the top teams at the top is I think there is a rule (I think, correct me if I am wrong) that says you can only spend as much money on players as you are earning from club operations, or something like that. IMO this ensconces the top teams - Man U earns a billion a year in revenue, so it is allowed to spend way more than a club that has $50m in revenue, and so it can buy much better players, coaches, etc. that keep it winning, and making more $$$. How does the smaller club ever compete with that?

Here's how:

IMO, if an Elon Musk wants to buy a Wrexham and dump a billion in to the club to buy players, that should be A-OK. That can shake things up in a hurry.

All just MO.

I don't disagree with the points made here. The real debate is between open versus closed systems. There are tradeoffs for both.

The trade off for open systems is the possibility of entrenched superteams. However, no one wants to talk about the downsides of closed systems which are the high barriers to entry and the disincentives to innovation. Just recently, the Milwaukee Brewers threatened to leave if the state didn't agree to spend hundreds of millions to renovate the stadium. They can do that because of cartel power. It's grossly unfair to fans and cities across the country to be subjected to this madness. This doesn't happen under an open system because someone would just come in and start a new team and get started if an old team disappears without having to spend gobsmacks for the "privilege." That's real market power that the good ol boys fear.

Why should I have to spend $2 billion to start a team if I can buy a current team for, let's say, $20 to 30 million on a lower level to then spend some more to bring better players? It'll take time and patience to get to the top level but I'd save money in the longer term as long as I don't overspend on mediocre players.

It's rather interesting to see fans of G programs take the same attitude as fans of second division English teams in soccer, who still dream of being at the top level.

:

Good points.

Reinventing the wheel as your tv deal approaches expiration… Smart.

Hope Jonathan Smith and Jake Dickert find new jobs as Oregon State and Washington State flounder around.

There was a Fluguar caller that kept pushing this notion on the call-in shows during the summer realignment drama. Something like this actually works way better in a 16-18 team power league.

B1G Premiere: tOSU PSU UM MSU Wisc Iowa USC UO

The only problem now is the terrible geography. Imagine USC and UCLA splitting. Of course, a regional rival can still be cross protected. But something like that works way better for the SEC and B1G from a competitive standpoint, which is a major issue currently.

The money needs to be worked out though. How much of a difference would that revenue be in addition to school turnover? Schools like Vandy and NWU would be permanently relegated.

(09-20-2023 01:12 PM)LUOrange Wrote:  If the PAC 2 & MWC are really considering this, I just see this as the better MWC brands taking the longer route to exiting the conference without having to pay exit fees and losing residuals, with the long term goal of adding the better western AAC brands as well. The less appealing/known MWC brands like Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah State, etc. should think real hard on this, because they're better off making SDSU, UNLV, CSU and Boise pay the exit fees sooner than being left out to dry like the PAC has done to OSU and WSU.

And if the other conferences join in, we can get our P,M, and G leagues after all the moves are made and promotions and relegations become illusions as they would rarely happen after that point.

(09-20-2023 01:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  This is silly. Why split into 2 levels of 8 teams each when all 16 teams could compete for the conference championship.

You say there is no drama if teams finish last? Coaches get fired when teams finish last. New coaches are hired. That's plenty of drama.

I think we have to look at the specific circumstances here: the Pac-2 is still a separate conference that has its own FBS status and NCAA Tournament bid (plus revenue such as accrued NCAA Tournament credits in the future), so there’s a large loss of value if it’s dissolved. This is a potential way for both the Pac-2 and MWC to continue to exist as separate leagues yet work in tandem regarding media rights and the pro/rel element. The “premier” league would be in the driver’s seat for the G5/6 CFP spot while they maintain two separate NCAA Tournament bids.

So, this is quite distinct from when other people suggest a pro/rel element to a large single conference. A single conference doesn’t have the same incentive for this pro/rel system as two separate conferences.

Once again, I don’t think this will happen, but pro/rel makes more sense in this setup where two conferences work together as opposed to a single league (especially the power league where the top powers just beat each other up, which they clearly don’t want when we see games like Ohio State-Penn State disappear with power conference expansion).

The basic reason this dies is the NCAA won't recognize this A2 as an autonomous conference no matter which G5 schools promote. It'll be a G5/6 conference, with a lower G5/6 conference attached to it.

(09-20-2023 01:12 PM)LUOrange Wrote:  If the PAC 2 & MWC are really considering this, I just see this as the better MWC brands taking the longer route to exiting the conference without having to pay exit fees and losing residuals, with the long term goal of adding the better western AAC brands as well. The less appealing/known MWC brands like Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah State, etc. should think real hard on this, because they're better off making SDSU, UNLV, CSU and Boise pay the exit fees sooner than being left out to dry like the PAC has done to OSU and WSU.

THIS^^^

(09-20-2023 12:09 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 11:51 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  This is great if you want to...

1. Make College Football more complicated to follow (who's in what conference this year?).
2. Make it near impossible to forecast your athletic budget year to year.
3. Make regional rival games even less common than they are now.

Both revenues and expenses (travel destinations) get harder to forecast.

Going to a relegation model only give ammunition to the folks saying college football is turning professional (and they have much already, see: NIL).

It’s overstated on managing revenue. Football coaches have a base salary with the lower conference and a performance bonus tied to the upper conference. It’s not like performance bonuses don’t exist every where else.

I would pay the higher level to the upper tier plus the two relegated teams to prevent perverse incentives to play injured players.

(09-20-2023 02:31 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IMHO, there will be more interest in pro/rel as conferences get larger. It’s innovative of the PAC2 & MWC to have this discussion. The big issues are how to distribute the money and schedule end-of-season games[/u]. It won’t take long for media to monetize these changes and incentivize other conferences to follow suit.

If they can get at least 16 teams in the two conferences, then television rights should increase for football. Winner of the lower division automatically gets promoted; and last place finisher in the upper conference gets demoted. Initially, pro/rel games could be the 12th game of the season and scheduled for December: a) The number #2 team in the lower conference can host a game against the second-worst finisher in the upper conference; while b) the third-lowest finisher in the upper conference can host a game against the #3 team from the lower conference. It provides new media content when college football only has Army/Navy or FCS tournament competition ongoing…it’s a unique opportunity and window for content. The top conference still has a CCG. The top finisher of the lower conference is still eligible for the CFP/bowls. Eventually, you ask the NCAA to classify pro/rel as “bowl” games.

I think they are targeting 24. 12 or so west and 12 east.

Matt Brown making an appearance on 365 Sports yesterday.

(09-20-2023 09:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think we have to look at the specific circumstances here: the Pac-2 is still a separate conference that has its own FBS status and NCAA Tournament bid (plus revenue such as accrued NCAA Tournament credits in the future), so there’s a large loss of value if it’s dissolved. This is a potential way for both the Pac-2 and MWC to continue to exist as separate leagues yet work in tandem regarding media rights and the pro/rel element. The “premier” league would be in the driver’s seat for the G5/6 CFP spot while they maintain two separate NCAA Tournament bids.

So, this is quite distinct from when other people suggest a pro/rel element to a large single conference. A single conference doesn’t have the same incentive for this pro/rel system as two separate conferences.

Once again, I don’t think this will happen, but pro/rel makes more sense in this setup where two conferences work together as opposed to a single league (especially the power league where the top powers just beat each other up, which they clearly don’t want when we see games like Ohio State-Penn State disappear with power conference expansion).

Frank, these games are already disappearing with the mega leagues. Is tOSU playing PSU protected in '24 and beyond? I don't even think that one was confirmed. The networks need to do away with Bama versus USC or Fla versus MSU games where possible. The setup works very nicely in the SEC. However, the revenue disparity will probably be an issue if relegated schools are looking at pay cuts of up to 5-10 million. But if extra money is already pooled for the promotion league, using let's say the previous year's post season money, then that's a lot of money up for grabs. This would also fuel SEC expansion, as dilution would no longer be cost prohibitive.

I don't like it in the B1G because of the geographic issues, but it's only the west coast teams that are heavily impacted. They can still use it though, so long as the money is worked out.

I'm curious to get JRSec's thoughts on this.

Does this mean their games will become super boring and the players will become experts at feigning injuries?


In all seriousness, this is a really dumb idea. The Pac doesn’t have a media deal.

(09-20-2023 11:19 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(09-20-2023 02:31 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IMHO, there will be more interest in pro/rel as conferences get larger. It’s innovative of the PAC2 & MWC to have this discussion. The big issues are how to distribute the money and schedule end-of-season games[/u]. It won’t take long for media to monetize these changes and incentivize other conferences to follow suit.

If they can get at least 16 teams in the two conferences, then television rights should increase for football. Winner of the lower division automatically gets promoted; and last place finisher in the upper conference gets demoted. Initially, pro/rel games could be the 12th game of the season and scheduled for December: a) The number #2 team in the lower conference can host a game against the second-worst finisher in the upper conference; while b) the third-lowest finisher in the upper conference can host a game against the #3 team from the lower conference. It provides new media content when college football only has Army/Navy or FCS tournament competition ongoing…it’s a unique opportunity and window for content. The top conference still has a CCG. The top finisher of the lower conference is still eligible for the CFP/bowls. Eventually, you ask the NCAA to classify pro/rel as “bowl” games.

I think they are targeting 24. 12 or so west and 12 east.

Use the KISS method…They only need a minimum of 16 teams to start the process.

On one track, they manage the administrative issues. First, it’s essential that WSU and OSU keep the PAC alive. Second, name Gloria Nevarez as commissioner of both the PAC and MWC. Third, move some western schools into the PAC (for example: San Jose State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Nevada, UNLV and Hawaii join WSU & OSU). The MWC will include the core of Boise State, Utah State, Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force, and New Mexico; plus two new members TBD (NDSU, SDSU, NMSU, Texas FBS schools??). Use the continuity of the MWC group that moved into the PAC to maintain the NCAA conference accreditation.

On a separate track, handle the media and financial issues. Develop scenarios for pro/rel that create the most interest for media in late season games. Get the media partner to value the higher content football product. Negotiate a fair and predictable split of revenues for pro/rel football conferences.

(09-21-2023 07:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  Does this mean their games will become super boring and the players will become experts at feigning injuries?


In all seriousness, this is a really dumb idea. The Pac doesn’t have a media deal.

To be sure, the MWC won’t have a media deal in a couple of years, either. They’re going to have to start negotiating a new one within the next 12 months or so (if they haven’t been already).

There are a lot of issues with the Pac continuing in some form as a separate league, but I think the lack of a media deal is a red herring on that front at least with respect to attracting or working with MWC schools since their own deal is expiring. The AAC is the one with the long-term TV in place.

(09-21-2023 07:40 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  On one track, they manage the administrative issues. First, it’s essential that WSU and OSU keep the PAC alive. Second, name Gloria Nevarez as commissioner of both the PAC and MWC. Third, move some western schools into the PAC (for example: San Jose State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Nevada, UNLV and Hawaii join WSU & OSU). The MWC will include the core of Boise State, Utah State, Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force, and New Mexico; plus two new members TBD (NDSU, SDSU, NMSU, Texas FBS schools??). Use the continuity of the MWC group that moved into the PAC to maintain the NCAA conference accreditation.

Which is, as some have said here, just a "long game" way of separating the high value MWC schools out without having to pay exit fees.

The front range schools have to be seeing through this ruse.