(04-21-2021 01:04 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  As an example of relegation between G5 conferences assume CUSA and AAC had an agreement. The top three CUSA schools would start playing in the AAC and the bottom three AAC schools would start playing in CUSA.

But what would that do? CUSA or AAC, it's still the "have nots".

(04-21-2021 01:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This is a European soccer concept that simply doesn’t translate well to college football.

Why not? I mean, it won't happen for the reasons that other posters have already mentioned, but why wouldn't it "translate well to cfb" in your words? Why should the Vandys, Illinois, Kansas's, Rutgers, etc. of the world still be afforded P5 status when they've done literally nothing in the past 20 or more years to justify their existence in it?

I think three going up and down across the board is too many. I’d say do one promoted/regulated per conference but you would have to ensure all conferences had the same number of members. We would essentially have to completely start from scratch and make new conferences. Why stop at FBS? Get the FCS and D2/D3 involved. Give everyone a chance to move up and keep letting the trash fall.

Never gonna happen.

Even though it would be between two G5 conferences it would

1. Cause a lot of interest and excitement
2. Get tremendous publicity
3. Cause sports writers to ask "Why not P5?"
4. Possibly raise schools that are willing to make commitments

Suppose a school had income of $1 million per year is suddenly receiving $7 million per year. Its AD might say "this is great and we are not going to be relegated down". The school starts upgrading facilities and paying their coaches more. The school that was relegated down is no longer a drag on its old conference and that conference has a dynamic new member. You are forming the "Best of The Rest" conferences.

(04-21-2021 01:04 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  As an example of relegation between G5 conferences assume CUSA and AAC had an agreement. The top three CUSA schools would start playing in the AAC and the bottom three AAC schools would start playing in CUSA.

That is an example of what is referred to as a "reductio ad absurdum."

.

What if you invest in facilities and coaches and max out your new P5 relegation dough? Now you've done all that but the coach was a bust and the team didn't make the mustard and now you're back to G5 money with some serious bills to pay. I think a better plan is to have one change every year on a 3 year basis. So you get 3 years individually to right the ship and make the right investments, but the conference would see change every year. All this would take is starting by switching only one team. One year to make a difference and maintain it is pretty impossible. But I guess if you worked your way to be considered for relegation, your ducks are already in a row.

(04-21-2021 01:35 PM)thespywhozaggedme Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 01:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This is a European soccer concept that simply doesn’t translate well to college football.

Why not? I mean, it won't happen for the reasons that other posters have already mentioned, but why wouldn't it "translate well to cfb" in your words? Why should the Vandys, Illinois, Kansas's, Rutgers, etc. of the world still be afforded P5 status when they've done literally nothing in the past 20 or more years to justify their existence in it?

It will never happen because the bottom of the P5 would never agree to a system where they could be separated from the teams that some of them have been with for 100+ yrs or give up their tv money.

it's also a sport by sport basis right? because rarely are they garbage in every sport.

(04-21-2021 01:47 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  Never gonna happen.

Agreed, it makes too much sense and holds everyone accountable.

(04-21-2021 02:04 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  Even though it would be between two G5 conferences it would

1. Cause a lot of interest and excitement
2. Get tremendous publicity
3. Cause sports writers to ask "Why not P5?"
4. Possibly raise schools that are willing to make commitments

Suppose a school had income of $1 million per year is suddenly receiving $7 million per year. Its AD might say "this is great and we are not going to be relegated down". The school starts upgrading facilities and paying their coaches more. The school that was relegated down is no longer a drag on its old conference and that conference has a dynamic new member. You are forming the "Best of The Rest" conferences.

But that's just it, g5-g5 isn't "relegated down", they're both still not P5, i.e. the "have nots". Just because you go to a better G5, doesn't make you any less G5, it's like being the tallest midget in a room full of midgets; at the end of the day, you're still a midget.

(04-21-2021 02:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 01:35 PM)thespywhozaggedme Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 01:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This is a European soccer concept that simply doesn’t translate well to college football.

Why not? I mean, it won't happen for the reasons that other posters have already mentioned, but why wouldn't it "translate well to cfb" in your words? Why should the Vandys, Illinois, Kansas's, Rutgers, etc. of the world still be afforded P5 status when they've done literally nothing in the past 20 or more years to justify their existence in it?

It will never happen because the bottom of the P5 would never agree to a system where they could be separated from the teams that some of them have been with for 100+ yrs or give up their tv money.

Agreed. It holds the P5 welfare recipient's accountable.

(04-21-2021 02:14 PM)Meatwad Wrote:  it's also a sport by sport basis right? because rarely are they garbage in every sport.

only for cfb. Because it's the only sport in the world that doesn't allow all of its members to play for the championship, regardless of their record.

(04-21-2021 02:11 PM)MUther Wrote:  What if you invest in facilities and coaches and max out your new P5 relegation dough? Now you've done all that but the coach was a bust and the team didn't make the mustard and now you're back to G5 money with some serious bills to pay. I think a better plan is to have one change every year on a 3 year basis. So you get 3 years individually to right the ship and make the right investments, but the conference would see change every year. All this would take is starting by switching only one team. One year to make a difference and maintain it is pretty impossible. But I guess if you worked your way to be considered for relegation, your ducks are already in a row.

I'm not following; if a team was good enough to get promoted to P5, you're saying "what happens if they start to suck again and piss away all of their money"? Well, keep winning, don't suck, and be fiscally responsible.

(04-21-2021 01:04 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  As an example of relegation between G5 conferences assume CUSA and AAC had an agreement. The top three CUSA schools would start playing in the AAC and the bottom three AAC schools would start playing in CUSA.

Hmmmmm....interesting.

Never going to happen but I want to point out something most of you are failing to understand...
I keep seeing the Vandy's of P5

FB Vany has been to 5 bowls in the last 10 years and ranked two out of ten
BB Vandy has made the NCAA Tourney 4 out of the last ten (ranked twice) and 8 out of the last 17 ranked 7 times and 2 sweet 16s

Sure they have an advantage playing in the SEC but they also have a huge disadvantage....playing in the SEC

Context: Up till 2 out of the last 3 years...its been 38 years since Houston won a NCAA Tourney game. In that same 18 years Houston has made 4 NCAA Tourneys

FB in those same 10 years as Vandy Houston had 7 winning seasons...2 more than Vandy and finished ranked twice...same as Vandy . Vandy is playing 3 to 4 ranked teams every year and a couple in the top 10. I think we all seen what happens when Houston steps up in playing ranked schools....
4-8

Hell those at the top of the AAC were themselves feeding at the bottom of the barrel 8 to 10 years ago.
Memphis had 4 seasons over .500 since joining CUSA in 1996 till their second year in the AAC 7,7,8,9, and 7 straight winning season in the AAC...11 out of the last 25. Add a couple top 10 teams to those schedules and Memphis could very easily been a .500 team 3 out of the past 7

So yes there are benefits of playing in the SEC but there's a lot more liabilities when it comes to winning. Than there are in the AAC. I understand most fans only want to look at the good years and try their best to remove their team from...many many seasons of losing

Like I said...never going to happen but the top today is only a bad hire away from rebuilding and being back climbing the ladder

"But that's just it, g5-g5 isn't "relegated down",

That's only true if 1 == 7.

Actually the numbers involved are 200K and 10 M.

(04-21-2021 01:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This is a European soccer concept that simply doesn’t translate well to college football.

This, because two reasons:

1) College teams have too much turnover. Playing well for two years will get you moved up, then your team is full of freshmen in the harder conference. There would always be a delay.

2) More important: The teams with all the say on this are currently in the higher tier and would be signing up for potential relegation. That reason alone is why it's impossible.

(04-21-2021 02:45 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Never going to happen but I want to point out something most of you are failing to understand...
I keep seeing the Vandy's of P5

FB Vany has been to 5 bowls in the last 10 years and ranked two out of ten
BB Vandy has made the NCAA Tourney 4 out of the last ten (ranked twice) and 8 out of the last 17 ranked 7 times and 2 sweet 16s

Sure they have an advantage playing in the SEC but they also have a huge disadvantage....playing in the SEC

Context: Up till 2 out of the last 3 years...its been 38 years since Houston won a NCAA Tourney game. In that same 18 years Houston has made 4 NCAA Tourneys

FB in those same 10 years as Vandy Houston had 7 winning seasons...2 more than Vandy and finished ranked twice...same as Vandy . Vandy is playing 3 to 4 ranked teams every year and a couple in the top 10. I think we all seen what happens when Houston steps up in playing ranked schools....
4-8

Hell those at the top of the AAC were themselves feeding at the bottom of the barrel 8 to 10 years ago.
Memphis had 4 seasons over .500 since joining CUSA in 1996 till their second year in the AAC 7,7,8,9, and 7 straight winning season in the AAC...11 out of the last 25. Add a couple top 10 teams to those schedules and Memphis could very easily been a .500 team 3 out of the past 7

So yes there are benefits of playing in the SEC but there's a lot more liabilities when it comes to winning. Than there are in the AAC. I understand most fans only want to look at the good years and try their best to remove their team from...many many seasons of losing

Like I said...never going to happen but the top today is only a bad hire away from rebuilding and being back climbing the ladder

Of course everyone knows it’s not going to happen, it’s just discussion. However back to your examples, When we talk about being ranked- a P-5 team can be 5-3 and be ranked while a G5 has to be virtually undefeated so it takes the sos into account already or at least the name bias. For e.g.why was Missouri ranked last year with 5-3 and no wins against a team with a winning record or how did Iowa state jumped so high in the ranking etc etc.
Going to Memphis and having a better record in AAC - that’s the point that is being made : Memphis had to invest in football to get better (promote) or we would always stay piss poor. (Or relegated). It does not have to be Vanderbilt, it could be tennesse.

https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/eu...petitions.

European Super League collapse explained: What's next?

Read this article, this is a more likely scenario.

The A5 will break away from the NCAA with a set # of teams and Conferences