Know it would never happen, but for once would like to see an actual promotion/relegation system to be instituted between two conferences. Allow actual merit to be the judge of promotability, rather than media markets. In most cases, the media markets will prevail anyway.

It won't happen because of TV contracts, the massive changes in payout, and the lower performing C7 schools like DePaul, Seton Hall, and Providence would never agree to such a deal. But relegation/promotion would arguably help both the A10 and C7. C7 schools could not rest on their higher status and just coast. Even the bottom level would have reasons for their fans to show up.

Set up the A10 tournament so that it finishes before the C7 tournament starts. The A10 regular season victor plays the C7 cellar dweller.

For instance, with a new lineup as follows, the top team from the A10 would be promoted and the bottom team from the C7 would be relegated, if the A10 team wins.

C7
Seton Hall
Providence
St Johns
Villanova
Georgetown
DePaul
Marquette
Butler
Dayton
St Louis
Creighton
Xavier

A10

VCU
UMass
LaSalle
Richmond
G Washington
St Joe's
URI
Fordham
St. Bonaventure
Duquesne
Detroit
Loyola (Chi)

Arguably, both conferences would be strengthened, as every school in the C7 would be fearful of demotion and every A10 school would be shooting for a Madison Square Garden showdown. No team would ever lose the potential for the Big Dance. Financial arrangements could be made that any team moving down would not lose their full C7 share for five years (losing 20% each year if they stay down for five years, at which point they become a full A10 member), and any team moving up would only gain 20% of a C7 share each year if they stay up in the C7 for five years.

True pay for performance.

Again, it won't happen, but something like this arrangement would captivate the college basketball audience.

(01-24-2013 12:19 AM)NoDak Wrote:  Know it would never happen, but for once would like to see an actual promotion/relegation system to be instituted between two conferences. Allow actual merit to be the judge of promotability, rather than media markets. In most cases, the media markets will prevail anyway.

It won't happen because of TV contracts, the massive changes in payout, and the lower performing C7 schools like DePaul, Seton Hall, and Providence would never agree to such a deal. But relegation/promotion would arguably help both the A10 and C7. C7 schools could not rest on their higher status and just coast. Even the bottom level would have reasons for their fans to show up.

Set up the A10 tournament so that it finishes before the C7 tournament starts. The A10 regular season victor plays the C7 cellar dweller.

For instance, with a new lineup as follows, the top team from the A10 would be promoted and the bottom team from the C7 would be relegated, if the A10 team wins.

C7
Seton Hall
Providence
St Johns
Villanova
Georgetown
DePaul
Marquette
Butler
Dayton
St Louis
Creighton
Xavier

A10

VCU
UMass
LaSalle
Richmond
G Washington
St Joe's
URI
Fordham
St. Bonaventure
Duquesne
Detroit
Loyola (Chi)

Arguably, both conferences would be strengthened, as every school in the C7 would be fearful of demotion and every A10 school would be shooting for a Madison Square Garden showdown. No team would ever lose the potential for the Big Dance. Financial arrangements could be made that any team moving down would not lose their full C7 share for five years (losing 20% each year if they stay down for five years, at which point they become a full A10 member), and any team moving up would only gain 20% of a C7 share each year if they stay up in the C7 for five years.

True pay for performance.

Again, it won't happen, but something like this arrangement would captivate the college basketball audience.

Only if the Big Ten agrees to do one with the MAC.

This is actually somewhat similar to how some soccer leagues work over in Europe. You have various levels of teams, and top teams can go up to the next level. You also have the Champions league, which essentially works the same way if I remember correctly (top leagues get up to 4 teams in).

I am hardly an expert on international soccer though.

Terrible idea. Pro soccer is full of paid athletes. You want to see athletics before academics, use relegation. Every coach would be fired if they got relegated. Half the team would transfer and programs would implode. Coaches would start playing kids they were trying to discipline instead of teaching to get promoted or avoid relegation.

Rivalries would be all jacked up. It's college basketball, even strong programs will have down seasons and the first time you relegate a brand name program for a upstart but non brand name program people are going to get pissed off. Does anyone want to see a Marquette relegated because of a bad year so we can face La Salle? I don't.

Another byproduct - promotion/relegation actually entrenches a handful of power teams more than fixed leagues. While there's a lot of shifting at the bottom of a promotion/relegation league, all of the top talent gravitate toward a handful of squads to create super teams that have no chance of being relegated. Any player that's worth anything won't ever join a team that has any chance of getting relegated, which creates a very elite upper crust and then a large underclass. Look at how few English Premier League clubs actually have an chance at winning the league in any given year. The EPL makes Major League Baseball look equitable.

It may work for European soccer but the BE and A10 are not one sport leagues why should the "other" sport teams have to switch conferences every so often because the bb team at their school finished last? Would also be costly in terms of simple things like switching logos, publications etc. Not to mention confusing and potentially damaging to recruiting and budgeting. Fan support would likely drop and rivalries would also likely take a hit

(01-24-2013 10:32 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  It may work for European soccer but the BE and A10 are not one sport leagues why should the "other" sport teams have to switch conferences every so often because the bb team at their school finished last? Would also be costly in terms of simple things like switching logos, publications etc. Not to mention confusing and potentially damaging to recruiting and budgeting. Fan support would likely drop and rivalries would also likely take a hit

Yes, it's just not practical when applied to college sports (beyond the other reasons mentioned above by others). Promotion/relegation is generally promoted (no pun intended) by schools outside of the power conference structure as a way for their own school to get into it (since they know that they can't get in based on the standard financial metrics of conference realignment). There's no reason for anyone within that power conference structure to ever agree to it.

(01-24-2013 12:19 AM)NoDak Wrote:  C7
Seton Hall
Providence
St Johns
Villanova
Georgetown
DePaul
Marquette
Butler
Dayton
St Louis
Creighton
Xavier

A10

VCU
UMass
LaSalle
Richmond
G Washington
St Joe's
URI
Fordham
St. Bonaventure
Duquesne
Detroit
Loyola (Chi)

I realize that Dayton has a larger arena and draws more fans to their games than VCU. I also understand that VCU isn't a private university like UD and the current "C7."

BUT if the aim of a new Conference of 12 basketball-centric D-1 universities in the eastern half of the US is to produce the highest quality and most stable league with traditionally highly successful members in larger media centers and with those members geographically situated such that a 2-division set-up of 6 eastern teams and 6 midwestern teams, then I fail to see why VCU isn't the member needed as #12 instead of Dayton.

Heck, if we're going to go "heavy" in the midwest, I'd even prefer Wichita State over Dayton as a quality partner in this venture!

(01-24-2013 10:32 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  It may work for European soccer but the BE and A10 are not one sport leagues why should the "other" sport teams have to switch conferences every so often because the bb team at their school finished last? Would also be costly in terms of simple things like switching logos, publications etc. Not to mention confusing and potentially damaging to recruiting and budgeting. Fan support would likely drop and rivalries would also likely take a hit

then don't limit it to BB
relegate the bottom three schools that suck in all sports (men and women) that year (or two years) and promote the top three A-10 schools in all sports

(01-26-2013 06:01 PM)EPJr Wrote:  

(01-24-2013 10:32 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  It may work for European soccer but the BE and A10 are not one sport leagues why should the "other" sport teams have to switch conferences every so often because the bb team at their school finished last? Would also be costly in terms of simple things like switching logos, publications etc. Not to mention confusing and potentially damaging to recruiting and budgeting. Fan support would likely drop and rivalries would also likely take a hit

then don't limit it to BB
relegate the bottom three schools that suck in all sports (men and women) that year (or two years) and promote the top three A-10 schools in all sports

how would you determine the bottom 3 in ALL sports? sears cup? average finish of teams? how would you account for sports that dont really have a one on one regular season (like track,golf, swimming, xcountry and tennis)? What about sports where every conference member doesnt play each other? How would you account for that? What about the schools that dont play a particular sport? Should having baseball team carry more weight than a LAX team? How do you balance the performance of men and women sports? Would having a successful softball and or field hockey team carry more or less weight than being mens BB champion(and nothing else)?

If a system like this was in place a few years ago Indiana would be out of the B1G! Didnt UNC finish at or near the bottom of the ACC 5 or 6 years ago?

This is a stupid idea why are we still talking about it?

Only way something like P/R would ever work in college is in ONE conference, with an upper/lower divisions (that weren't named upper/lower). It would also have to be a league where 1/3 of the teams were pretty good, and the bottom 2/3 were not.

I heard a rumor that the A-10 men's soccer coaches talked about it when Charlotte and Saint Louis joined.

If the WCC added Seattle or Denver, they could pull it off in MBB. You'd have Gonzaga, BYU, SMC in the upper division, with 3-6, then 6-12 in the other division.

What's there to gain from such a plan?
There has never been any mutual agreeement of this magnitute between two D-1 Conferences in the past.
On what basis would such decisions (up and down) be made? (RPI; Final standings; overall seasonal record; over what span of time?)
How would NCAA Units be divided up among the members of the two Conferences if there was movement of members back and forth between the two leagues?
How would TV contract $ be apportioned out with the two Conferences having different multi-year contracts with potentially different networks?
How would coaches be able to recruit players with the existence of uncertainty about in what Conference the player would participate. (It's one thing to play the likes of Marquette, Creighton, or Georgetown in their basketball palaces but quite another to compete against Fordham, LaSalle, or GW in their humble gyms!)