First, as a primer, I lived for 20 years in the East Bay area of California, and my kids both played high school sports in the North Coast Section of the California Interscholastic Federation. That led to me following things like leagues and realignments that they dealt with. One thing that they did was to see some leagues get creative with respect to alignments within different sports. What resulted was the creation of "umbrella" leagues to which every school was a member, and split those leagues into one or more "division" within each league. They then create what amounts to their "A" division (where the teams compete for a chance at the highest level of state playoffs) and a "B" division where the champ still receives a title and a postseason bid, but with little expectation of an actual open playoff bid. The leagues then reconfigure (the frequency depends on the league) with effectively promotion and relegation within their leagues to ensure that the top division has as strong of a strength of schedule as possible. So, for example, De La Salle (almost always the best football team in the Bay area every year) is in the East Bay Athletic League's "Mountain" division with typically the top 5 other football teams in the EBAL every year, while the five weaker teams compete in the EBAL's "Valley" division.

The reason I was thinking about this was that I was listening to a Solid Verbal podcast with Bill Connelly and he was talking about pods and it made me think that something like this could easily be done with, say, the Big XII. Imagine that the Big XII expanded by adding 8 schools (let's say, for argument's sake, they add Boise State, BYU, Houston, SMU, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF and USF (and become an 18 team overall conference). And, for purposes of the first year, let's say they move Kansas into their "B" division and play 8 conference games (round robin). Then each division plays their own championship game, and the two champions are both given consideration for inclusion among the top 6. The champion of the "A" division would have lost a poor strength of schedule game in Kansas, almost ensuring them a shot at one of those top 4 seeds. It also frees up each team in this conference to have 4 non-conference games (which they can use to play teams from the other division if they like, e.g. Kansas/K-State). This would seemingly keep a Texas and Oklahoma happy, as it gives them a bit more freedom to play some quality non-conference games. Furthermore, it continuously removes some scheduling anchors, and it provides a mechanism for teams that improve to move up.

From a monetary perspective, you would presumably give the vast majority of the money to the teams in the "A" division. And, for non-football sports, you could consider the division approach as well with a postseason tournament that allows for one true champion to emerge (e.g. seed the "A" division as seeds 1-9 and the "B" division as seeds 10-18 and play a regular tournament where the first day would be on Wednesday between 15 vs. 18 ("B" 6th vs. "B" 9th) and 16 vs. 17 ("B" 7th vs. "B" 8th) to crown a conference champion on Sunday.

You can kind of imagine an SEC doing something similar, where they could pick off let's say Clemson, FSU, Miami and Virginia Tech and doing the same thing...

USFFan

The TV networks basically threatened to pick apart the Big 12 if they added 2 G5 teams, nevermind 8.

Many Ohio high school conferences have a similar set up but the divisions are more based on enrollment than athletic performance. It works well because it saves on travel, helps fill schedules, but the smaller schools still have something to strive for by winning the “small school” division.

In FBS I could see potential for forming a “Magnolia Division” or Conference for some of the smaller, more academic minded schools. It would give some of these likeminded institutions a chance to compete against a slate of similar schools rather than just being permanent fixtures at the bottom
Of their current division standings

(07-13-2021 12:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Many Ohio high school conferences have a similar set up but the divisions are more based on enrollment than athletic performance. It works well because it saves on travel, helps fill schedules, but the smaller schools still have something to strive for by winning the “small school” division.

In FBS I could see potential for forming a “Magnolia Division” or Conference for some of the smaller, more academic minded schools. It would give some of these likeminded institutions a chance to compete against a slate of similar schools rather than just being permanent fixtures at the bottom
Of their current division standings

The problem is that's not really what those "Davids" actually want. They want to play the "Goliaths", even if they know they will lose 90% of the time.

I've thought of this particular experiment before with the B12 and AAC. You'd have to make Texas and Oklahoma un-relegateable (or at least so until the end of the TV contract). Relegation may be based on more than 1 year of conference records to keep the strongest programs at the top even when they have a single "bad" year.

You'd need to pre-set the number of inter-division games so teams would have the same number of OOC games every year; if you're rival is relegated (or promoted) you can request they be your 1 cross-division game while other cross-division matchups are chosen by an arbitrary algorithm.

You'd also have to have payments with a multi-year lag. Say A teams get 10 shares and B teams get 1 share. The next year, relegated A teams receive 9 shares while promoted B teams get 2 shares. Teams in A get +1 to the 10 maximum; Teams in B get -1 but can't drop below the 18-team average. This way Kansas doesn't suddenly lose funding for their whole athletic program.

(07-13-2021 11:41 AM)Bogg Wrote:  The TV networks basically threatened to pick apart the Big 12 if they added 2 G5 teams, nevermind 8.

For sure no network would touch this if the expectation was to get all 18 teams at a rate that's equal to what every Big XII team makes now. But if instead it was set up where the teams in the "A" division got that (with a bump) and the teams in the "B" division got closer to what the AAC teams currently get, it would have a far greater likelihood of working.

USFFan

(07-13-2021 03:20 PM)Crayton Wrote:  I've thought of this particular experiment before with the B12 and AAC. You'd have to make Texas and Oklahoma un-relegateable (or at least so until the end of the TV contract). Relegation may be based on more than 1 year of conference record. You'd need to pre-set the number of inter-division games so teams would have the same number of OOC games every year; if you're rival is relegated (or promoted) you can request they be your 1 cross-division game while other cross-division matchups are chosen by an arbitrary algorithm.

You'd also have to have payments with a multi-year lag. Say A teams get 10 shares and B teams get 1 share. The next year, relegated A teams receive 9 shares while promoted B teams get 2 shares. Teams in A get +1 to the 10 maximum; Teams in B get -1 but can't drop below the 18-team average. This way Kansas doesn't suddenly lose funding for their whole athletic program.

I suspect you're probably right on both fronts. It would be a bit like credits, where years in the "A" division would get credits that would diminish over time (softening the financial hit when you are moved into "B") and promoted teams would earn credits that would pay out over years such that the longer they're up in "A" the more money they'll earn.

USFFan

(07-13-2021 03:20 PM)Crayton Wrote:  I've thought of this particular experiment before with the B12 and AAC. You'd have to make Texas and Oklahoma un-relegateable (or at least so until the end of the TV contract). Relegation may be based on more than 1 year of conference records to keep the strongest programs at the top even when they have a single "bad" year.

You'd need to pre-set the number of inter-division games so teams would have the same number of OOC games every year; if you're rival is relegated (or promoted) you can request they be your 1 cross-division game while other cross-division matchups are chosen by an arbitrary algorithm.

You'd also have to have payments with a multi-year lag. Say A teams get 10 shares and B teams get 1 share. The next year, relegated A teams receive 9 shares while promoted B teams get 2 shares. Teams in A get +1 to the 10 maximum; Teams in B get -1 but can't drop below the 18-team average. This way Kansas doesn't suddenly lose funding for their whole athletic program.

This…Relegation works in non-US soccer because the sport is theoretically bigger than individual clubs/brands. Yet media companies profit when brands play meaningful games. Texas and Oklahoma have way too much brand value that is prized by media companies…revenue would plummet if Texas or Oklahoma are ever relegated. Why would Texas, Oklahoma or ESPN/Fox agree to a deal that has unacceptable (although unlikely) downside risk?

If teams had relatively comparable brand value, then this approach would work.

Here was my VERY radical realignment idea.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-921024-post-17...id17398767

Quote:If we're getting crazy, then how about bribery instead? Get Texas, Oklahoma, and Clemson to join the AAC. Get a deal in revenue similar to the Big 12. I'll use the 2019 revenue of the Big 12 ($439M rounded to $440) for this example. The current AAC 11 get $25M each and the rest ($165M) gets split between those three giving them $55M each. Our current teams get way more money and they get more than what they earn now.

(07-13-2021 03:27 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(07-13-2021 03:20 PM)Crayton Wrote:  I've thought of this particular experiment before with the B12 and AAC. You'd have to make Texas and Oklahoma un-relegateable (or at least so until the end of the TV contract). Relegation may be based on more than 1 year of conference record. You'd need to pre-set the number of inter-division games so teams would have the same number of OOC games every year; if you're rival is relegated (or promoted) you can request they be your 1 cross-division game while other cross-division matchups are chosen by an arbitrary algorithm.

You'd also have to have payments with a multi-year lag. Say A teams get 10 shares and B teams get 1 share. The next year, relegated A teams receive 9 shares while promoted B teams get 2 shares. Teams in A get +1 to the 10 maximum; Teams in B get -1 but can't drop below the 18-team average. This way Kansas doesn't suddenly lose funding for their whole athletic program.

I suspect you're probably right on both fronts. It would be a bit like credits, where years in the "A" division would get credits that would diminish over time (softening the financial hit when you are moved into "B") and promoted teams would earn credits that would pay out over years such that the longer they're up in "A" the more money they'll earn.

USFFan

Welp. No worries about Texas and Oklahoma being relegated now. If Aresco can pull a houdini, maybe he can give his whole conference access to the P5 this way.

OK, time to give this idea another look.

What if Bowlsby and Aresco agreed to create a promotion/relegation conference based primarily on a merger of the Big XII and the AAC. There are two ways you could think about this going - either as a straight 20 team merger (under the Big XII umbrella to retain the whole "autonomy" thing where the current Big XII teams keep all of the exit fees from Texas and Oklahoma) or by inviting 4 others to a 24 team conference that essentially splits into an A division and a B division. The media would be paid out as a base rate plus money per appearance on whichever network (Fox, ABC, ESPN, etc.).

In the former, you have two 10 team divisions that play round robin games. Upon formation, you could even say (if you wanted) that it's the Big XII's 8 teams plus the top two from the AAC. However you do it, the bottom 2 teams would get "relegated" to the other division, and the top 2 teams in the lower division get "promoted" to the upper division. In doing this, you could begin to avoid having the anchors in either league drag down the strength of schedule and pretty well ensure the league champ is one of the top 6 league champs every year. You also then create a mechanism for the lower teams to improve.

In basketball, if you have the 20 team league, you simply play everybody once and a rival twice. If you go with the 24 team version, you just play as two separate 12 team conferences.

It would stabilize the league should somebody end up leaving later, and would actually avoid considerable teams paying exit fees and figuring out exactly who was going to eat whom.

USFFan