So I think I might know a way promotion/relegation can be done in college football and possibly college basketball. So the reason we'll probably never see it happen is because of the fear of the power teams dropping down a level and seeing a reduction in media payout. So how about we take that away to a degree. This modified pro/rel provides a floor for teams that they can not drop below, but still give teams the opportunity to be promoted, except B1G/SEC teams who are top tier, and earn an increase in revenue temporarily (as long as they're promoted above their floor tier). Will this actually happen, likely NO, but this is probably the closest model of Pro/Rel we could see.


Super ($60-64 mil/yr)
36 Permanent + 4 Temporary (ACC/B12/PAC)
Permanent: B1G & SEC teams +2
+2 = 2 of Clem, FSU, Kansas, Miami, UNC, ND*, and UVA
*= ND plays FB independent schedule in Power if they choose to stay FB Indy, but ineligible for promotion, can maintain separate Home media deal w/ NBC

Power ($30-32 mil/yr)
32 Permanent + 4 Temporary (AAC/MWC)
Permanent: ACC, Big 12, & PAC teams +2
+2 = 2 of UCONN, UNLV, Memphis, SDSU, USF, and Tulane

Major ($7.5-8 mil/yr)
28 Permanent + 4 Temporary (CUSA/MAC/SBC)
Permanent: AAC & MWC teams +7-8
+7-8 = 7-8 of Buffalo, UCONN FB?, UC Davis, FIU, Georgia St., Middle Tennessee, Old Dominion, UTEP, Texas St.
Teams based on D1 360's AAC/MWC expansion evaluation (had PAC survived) + UCONN FB (if not selected in Power tier)

Group/Mid-Major ($1.25-1.33 mil/yr)
28 Permanent (could add additional 2-4 FCS teams permanently to rebuild "west”)
Permanent: CUSA, MAC, & SBC teams + UMASS + UCONN? +1?
+1? = 1 FCS addition if UC Davis is not selected in the Major tier (Eastern Kentucky, Illinois St., Missouri St., SFA, Tarleton St.)


Pro/Rel: 2 teams each move up or back down after each season. Major and Group/Mid-major teams can move up multiple tiers. Teams temporarily promoted in the tier above their floor tier do receive an increase in revenue equal to the permanent teams of the tier they're competing in.

CCGs: Each tier has 2 CCGs (featuring either top 4 in 1 conf., top 2 in 2 conf., or 4 conf. champs depending on conf. format for each tier) with the winners (outside Super Tier) promoted and losers remaining in addition to potential CFP autobid.

Relegation Games: The top 3 tiers each have 1 relegation game featuring the 2nd and 3rd best temporary teams (based on overall conf. standings; 1st place safe, 4th relegated) where the winner stays promoted in their tier and the loser relegated down a tier.

CFP: top 5 champs (regardless of tier) + top 7 at-large

Bowl games: as is (6 wins), but tie-ins could be altered based on conference format within each tier or eliminated

Regular season: 12 games total (everything as is)
# of conference games up to each tier, but expect 8 or 9 for upper 2 tiers, and likely 8 for bottom 2 tiers

B1G + SEC + mix of 6-10 is the best arrangement of pro/rel (given current power dynamics). Correct that B1G/SEC are permanent, at least for the duration of the first media deal. But if you are decoupling media revenue from all-sports conferences, these "permanent" spots likely won't last past the first deal.

I think there is no compunction to have +2 other permanent teams. 'Maybe' you give the Irish such a medallion, but only if their TV deal is wrapped in yours (they can still have a fair bit of scheduling autonomy).

You probably lose the CCGs with pro/rel or at least have them morph into a seamless part of the overall playoff. Rankings are going the way of the dodo. Sure, give X Tier II teams a spot in the big playoff, but pick the other teams based on Super League Standings.

There should be income up/down escalators so AD budgets do not experience big shocks going up and down. Maybe you earn the above values, but are paid over a 10-year frame. This inertia should also be seen in relegation metrics, where teams are relegated only when they have one of the worst 3-year win-totals. A single bad year may not sink you right away.

I think it is okay to have the Super League a little larger (>40) so as to leave room for an eventual 20-team Premier League which will have no permanent medallions. And, of course, you can turn FCS into its own set of tiers feeding the Mid-Major Tier.

Why would BIG and SEC schools get permanent spot?

(01-15-2024 09:46 PM)Crayton Wrote:  B1G + SEC + mix of 6-10 is the best arrangement of pro/rel (given current power dynamics). Correct that B1G/SEC are permanent, at least for the duration of the first media deal. But if you are decoupling media revenue from all-sports conferences, these "permanent" spots likely won't last past the first deal.

I think there is no compunction to have +2 other permanent teams. 'Maybe' you give the Irish such a medallion, but only if their TV deal is wrapped in yours (they can still have a fair bit of scheduling autonomy).

You probably lose the CCGs with pro/rel or at least have them morph into a seamless part of the overall playoff. Rankings are going the way of the dodo. Sure, give X Tier II teams a spot in the big playoff, but pick the other teams based on Super League Standings.

There should be income up/down escalators so AD budgets do not experience big shocks going up and down. Maybe you earn the above values, but are paid over a 10-year frame. This inertia should also be seen in relegation metrics, where teams are relegated only when they have one of the worst 3-year win-totals. A single bad year may not sink you right away.

I think it is okay to have the Super League a little larger (>40) so as to leave room for an eventual 20-team Premier League which will have no permanent medallions. And, of course, you can turn FCS into its own set of tiers feeding the Mid-Major Tier.

So maybe 42 (8 temp.), 36 (8 temp.), 30 (8 temp.), 30 (138 teams) instead.

The +2/+2/+7 was to balance out the tiers through conference realignment before pro/rel.

I don't think teams will want to give up money lost from not playing CCGs so I think they'll still be incorporated in some capacity to keep that revenue, but maybe not the way I had it.

That is why I didn't have teams dropping below their floor. That way, ADs know what they're getting annually at the minimum to budget and getting promoted is more of a bonus for programs. I was thinking the numbers would be from football only and then maybe do something similar with pro/rel for basketball (men's and women's, probably cut the numbers above by 20-25% for basketball).

I'd be okay with it being over a 2-4 period where the top 4 stay promoted and the bottom 4 are relegated.

I did actually consider including FCS teams in pro/rel, but I figured since they had less scholarships, it would be unfair to them playing at a disadvantage for 1 to now up to 4 seasons.

(01-15-2024 10:43 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Why would BIG and SEC schools get permanent spot?

Everyone gets a permanent spot in their tier (floor).

B1G/SEC at top.
ACC/B12/PAC mid-top
AAC/MWC mid-bottom
CUSA/MAC/SBC bottom

Also, if you have teams losing due to dropping down a tier, they wouldn’t have it and therefore pro/rel would be dead on arrival. That's why I suggested a modified version of pro/rel where teams have floors they can't drop down based on TV media deals currently, but the ceiling is the top tier with B1G/SEC for all teams. This way, no one loses revenue and promotion serves as a bonus or reward for teams (except the B1G/SEC who are making double of the next tier down annually even without pro/rel).

I do think the numbers are in the ball park as far as the revenue, and would be a decent compromise, although the Tier 3 wouldn't be nearly worth as much. At least a few million less. However, I don't think the "permanent" schools can last beyond '26. You just can't have a system that doctors in programs and call it promo/rele. Teams can start in said positions, but there has to be some mechanism for schools like tOSU and Bama to get relegated... at SOME point.

Creative, but not enough flexibility here.

(01-16-2024 06:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I do think the numbers are in the ball park as far as the revenue, and would be a decent compromise, although the Tier 3 wouldn't be nearly worth as much. At least a few million less. However, I don't think the "permanent" schools can last beyond '26. You just can't have a system that doctors in programs and call it promo/rele. Teams can start in said positions, but there has to be some mechanism for schools like tOSU and Bama to get relegated... at SOME point.

Creative, but not enough flexibility here.

Yeah, I thought I might have been little low on tier 1 and high on Tiers 3 & 4. I was trying to be a x2, x4, x6 format with revenue payout. Maybe over time, start to gradually reduce the number of teams who are permanent, but the main issue with pro/rel is no one wants to lose money by dropping down, which was why I gave teams a floor so they don't lose money, but can make more money earning promotion and think this may be the closest thing to pro/rel we get in college football and maybe basketball. Doesn't mean it'll actually happen though.

Always been a big fan of the pro/rel idea for college football, but college football is not ready for something like that. They can’t even solve simple problems. Too many issues need to be worked out before something like that could even be considered.

All I know is that those Rutgers versus VaTech/Miami games this year were fun as hell, and not just for nostalgia but because the competition and talent is comparable. I enjoyed attending those games and would happily pay money to see those types of games. You just shouldn't be playing teams like UM tOSU Washington PSU every year if you are Rutgers, or even 3/4 of those teams. There are other pools of teams that would offer far more competitive games. It just makes a lot of sense in a sport like football, where all the talent accrues at the top.

Now maybe, you protect relegated teams but offering them transfer or NIL protections in some slush fund pooled collectively by the top tier. You just need a collective effort for something like this to be considered. But, American sports is not ready for it. The revenue does not work in the long run, which is why a Super League is still being discussed in Europe.

(01-16-2024 02:33 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(01-15-2024 10:43 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Why would BIG and SEC schools get permanent spot?

Everyone gets a permanent spot in their tier (floor).

B1G/SEC at top.
ACC/B12/PAC mid-top
AAC/MWC mid-bottom
CUSA/MAC/SBC bottom

Also, if you have teams losing due to dropping down a tier, they wouldn’t have it and therefore pro/rel would be dead on arrival. That's why I suggested a modified version of pro/rel where teams have floors they can't drop down based on TV media deals currently, but the ceiling is the top tier with B1G/SEC for all teams. This way, no one loses revenue and promotion serves as a bonus or reward for teams (except the B1G/SEC who are making double of the next tier down annually even without pro/rel).

SBC has been the highest ranked G5 the last two years in Football.

FCS gets left out again.

(01-16-2024 09:03 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  FCS gets left out again.

There are a handful of FCS that could challenge in several G5 leagues

(01-16-2024 07:29 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I do think the numbers are in the ball park as far as the revenue, and would be a decent compromise, although the Tier 3 wouldn't be nearly worth as much. At least a few million less. However, I don't think the "permanent" schools can last beyond '26. You just can't have a system that doctors in programs and call it promo/rele. Teams can start in said positions, but there has to be some mechanism for schools like tOSU and Bama to get relegated... at SOME point.

Creative, but not enough flexibility here.

Yeah, I thought I might have been little low on tier 1 and high on Tiers 3 & 4. I was trying to be a x2, x4, x6 format with revenue payout. Maybe over time, start to gradually reduce the number of teams who are permanent, but the main issue with pro/rel is no one wants to lose money by dropping down, which was why I gave teams a floor so they don't lose money, but can make more money earning promotion and think this may be the closest thing to pro/rel we get in college football and maybe basketball. Doesn't mean it'll actually happen though.

why would you create a fantasy about promotion/relegation but not have promotion/relegation?

Vanderbilt and Northwestern would finish at the bottom of the league almost every year. They would be relegated.

If I was implementing promotion/relegation I'd structure it differently with less teams:

60 teams in 6 10 team football only conferences, arranged by some metric (SP+?) where geography isn't taken into consideration Everyone plays 3 OOC games for traditional rivalries/payday whatever. 9 conference games. The winner of the "champions league" is essentially the national champion The last place team of each conference plays the winner of the next lower conference in a playoff bowl winner stays up. The 2 last place teams on the lowest conference are automatically relegated to what is now Div 1-aa and the national champion and runner up of 1-AA promoted. Other teams in the conferences that have winning records not in playoffs are free to accept bowl invitations to regional/national bowls with other semi-pro teams or college teams.

The media rights are sold as a package for the whole division and divvied up by conference affilition per year.

Let's demote Ohio State for a bad season, or Georgia.

Concept dead.

(01-16-2024 11:26 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 07:29 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I do think the numbers are in the ball park as far as the revenue, and would be a decent compromise, although the Tier 3 wouldn't be nearly worth as much. At least a few million less. However, I don't think the "permanent" schools can last beyond '26. You just can't have a system that doctors in programs and call it promo/rele. Teams can start in said positions, but there has to be some mechanism for schools like tOSU and Bama to get relegated... at SOME point.

Creative, but not enough flexibility here.

Yeah, I thought I might have been little low on tier 1 and high on Tiers 3 & 4. I was trying to be a x2, x4, x6 format with revenue payout. Maybe over time, start to gradually reduce the number of teams who are permanent, but the main issue with pro/rel is no one wants to lose money by dropping down, which was why I gave teams a floor so they don't lose money, but can make more money earning promotion and think this may be the closest thing to pro/rel we get in college football and maybe basketball. Doesn't mean it'll actually happen though.

why would you create a fantasy about promotion/relegation but not have promotion/relegation?

Vanderbilt and Northwestern would finish at the bottom of the league almost every year. They would be relegated.

If I was implementing promotion/relegation I'd structure it differently with less teams:

60 teams in 6 10 team football only conferences, arranged by some metric (SP+?) where geography isn't taken into consideration Everyone plays 3 OOC games for traditional rivalries/payday whatever. 9 conference games. The winner of the "champions league" is essentially the national champion The last place team of each conference plays the winner of the next lower conference in a playoff bowl winner stays up. The 2 last place teams on the lowest conference are automatically relegated to what is now Div 1-aa and the national champion and runner up of 1-AA promoted. Other teams in the conferences that have winning records not in playoffs are free to accept bowl invitations to regional/national bowls with other semi-pro teams or college teams.

The media rights are sold as a package for the whole division and divvied up by conference affilition per year.

To be upfront, I personally can’t stand promotion/relegation proposals as a general matter. It’s not that they’re good or bad, but rather they make little to no sense to the key parties involved outside of those hoping to get promoted. Fans generally focus on positive upside outcomes of promotion, but university presidents generally focus more on eliminating potential negative downside outcomes (which are inherent in relegation), so there’s a total disconnect. A dream university president budget isn’t rocketing income in great seasons, but rather nice and stable steady increases in income annually regardless of performance.

Having said that, I get what the OP is trying to do here in addressing what I’ve stated: if you’re going to get the power players (particularly the Big Ten and SEC) to even think about anything close to a promotion/relegation system, you essentially have to eliminate the relegation aspect for them or else they’ll never agree to it. Your second paragraph pointing to how Northwestern and Vanderbilt would get annually relegated (although if you’ve paid attention to the Big Ten standings, that’s actually not the case for Northwestern, but I digress) is exactly why those schools would never agree to any scenario where they have even a *chance* to get relegated. Hence, if you’re going to get Big Ten and SEC members involved, the only way to convince them is to be permanent members of the top level. If the rest of college football doesn’t agree to it, then the deal is DOA and those lower levels can just let the Big Ten and SEC keep hoovering up all of the revenue and power for themselves.

It’s not about fairness, but rather what it would take to get the Big Ten and SEC to even consider this type of system. Frankly, I don’t think any type of pro/rel system has any chance, but at least the OP addressed a major obstacle that actual relegation for any Big Ten or SEC schools would be a 100% non-starter for them. The beggars below the P2 can’t be choosers and remember the Golden Rule.

(01-16-2024 11:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 11:26 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 07:29 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I do think the numbers are in the ball park as far as the revenue, and would be a decent compromise, although the Tier 3 wouldn't be nearly worth as much. At least a few million less. However, I don't think the "permanent" schools can last beyond '26. You just can't have a system that doctors in programs and call it promo/rele. Teams can start in said positions, but there has to be some mechanism for schools like tOSU and Bama to get relegated... at SOME point.

Creative, but not enough flexibility here.

Yeah, I thought I might have been little low on tier 1 and high on Tiers 3 & 4. I was trying to be a x2, x4, x6 format with revenue payout. Maybe over time, start to gradually reduce the number of teams who are permanent, but the main issue with pro/rel is no one wants to lose money by dropping down, which was why I gave teams a floor so they don't lose money, but can make more money earning promotion and think this may be the closest thing to pro/rel we get in college football and maybe basketball. Doesn't mean it'll actually happen though.

why would you create a fantasy about promotion/relegation but not have promotion/relegation?

Vanderbilt and Northwestern would finish at the bottom of the league almost every year. They would be relegated.

If I was implementing promotion/relegation I'd structure it differently with less teams:

60 teams in 6 10 team football only conferences, arranged by some metric (SP+?) where geography isn't taken into consideration Everyone plays 3 OOC games for traditional rivalries/payday whatever. 9 conference games. The winner of the "champions league" is essentially the national champion The last place team of each conference plays the winner of the next lower conference in a playoff bowl winner stays up. The 2 last place teams on the lowest conference are automatically relegated to what is now Div 1-aa and the national champion and runner up of 1-AA promoted. Other teams in the conferences that have winning records not in playoffs are free to accept bowl invitations to regional/national bowls with other semi-pro teams or college teams.

The media rights are sold as a package for the whole division and divvied up by conference affilition per year.

To be upfront, I personally can’t stand promotion/relegation proposals as a general matter. It’s not that they’re good or bad, but rather they make little to no sense to the key parties involved outside of those hoping to get promoted. Fans generally focus on positive upside outcomes of promotion, but university presidents generally focus more on eliminating potential negative downside outcomes (which are inherent in relegation), so there’s a total disconnect. A dream university president budget isn’t rocketing income in great seasons, but rather nice and stable steady increases in income annually regardless of performance.

Having said that, I get what the OP is trying to do here in addressing what I’ve stated: if you’re going to get the power players (particularly the Big Ten and SEC) to even think about anything close to a promotion/relegation system, you essentially have to eliminate the relegation aspect for them or else they’ll never agree to it. Your second paragraph pointing to how Northwestern and Vanderbilt would get annually relegated (although if you’ve paid attention to the Big Ten standings, that’s actually not the case for Northwestern, but I digress) is exactly why those schools would never agree to any scenario where they have even a *chance* to get relegated. Hence, if you’re going to get Big Ten and SEC members involved, the only way to convince them is to be permanent members of the top level. If the rest of college football doesn’t agree to it, then the deal is DOA and those lower levels can just let the Big Ten and SEC keep hoovering up all of the revenue and power for themselves.

It’s not about fairness, but rather what it would take to get the Big Ten and SEC to even consider this type of system. Frankly, I don’t think any type of pro/rel system has any chance, but at least the OP addressed a major obstacle that actual relegation for any Big Ten or SEC schools would be a 100% non-starter for them. The beggars below the P2 can’t be choosers and remember the Golden Rule.

The only way it would have any chance to work is if you took the money aspect out of it. If the schools were placed in tiers separate from the conference media rights deals based on whatever the networks valued them at independently, like Notre Dame for instance, then if they got relegated to a different level or conference dependent on how it was structured then they wouldn’t lose anything.

(01-16-2024 11:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 11:26 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 07:29 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I do think the numbers are in the ball park as far as the revenue, and would be a decent compromise, although the Tier 3 wouldn't be nearly worth as much. At least a few million less. However, I don't think the "permanent" schools can last beyond '26. You just can't have a system that doctors in programs and call it promo/rele. Teams can start in said positions, but there has to be some mechanism for schools like tOSU and Bama to get relegated... at SOME point.

Creative, but not enough flexibility here.

Yeah, I thought I might have been little low on tier 1 and high on Tiers 3 & 4. I was trying to be a x2, x4, x6 format with revenue payout. Maybe over time, start to gradually reduce the number of teams who are permanent, but the main issue with pro/rel is no one wants to lose money by dropping down, which was why I gave teams a floor so they don't lose money, but can make more money earning promotion and think this may be the closest thing to pro/rel we get in college football and maybe basketball. Doesn't mean it'll actually happen though.

why would you create a fantasy about promotion/relegation but not have promotion/relegation?

Vanderbilt and Northwestern would finish at the bottom of the league almost every year. They would be relegated.

If I was implementing promotion/relegation I'd structure it differently with less teams:

60 teams in 6 10 team football only conferences, arranged by some metric (SP+?) where geography isn't taken into consideration Everyone plays 3 OOC games for traditional rivalries/payday whatever. 9 conference games. The winner of the "champions league" is essentially the national champion The last place team of each conference plays the winner of the next lower conference in a playoff bowl winner stays up. The 2 last place teams on the lowest conference are automatically relegated to what is now Div 1-aa and the national champion and runner up of 1-AA promoted. Other teams in the conferences that have winning records not in playoffs are free to accept bowl invitations to regional/national bowls with other semi-pro teams or college teams.

The media rights are sold as a package for the whole division and divvied up by conference affilition per year.

To be upfront, I personally can’t stand promotion/relegation proposals as a general matter. It’s not that they’re good or bad, but rather they make little to no sense to the key parties involved outside of those hoping to get promoted. Fans generally focus on positive upside outcomes of promotion, but university presidents generally focus more on eliminating potential negative downside outcomes (which are inherent in relegation), so there’s a total disconnect. A dream university president budget isn’t rocketing income in great seasons, but rather nice and stable steady increases in income annually regardless of performance.

Having said that, I get what the OP is trying to do here in addressing what I’ve stated: if you’re going to get the power players (particularly the Big Ten and SEC) to even think about anything close to a promotion/relegation system, you essentially have to eliminate the relegation aspect for them or else they’ll never agree to it. Your second paragraph pointing to how Northwestern and Vanderbilt would get annually relegated (although if you’ve paid attention to the Big Ten standings, that’s actually not the case for Northwestern, but I digress) is exactly why those schools would never agree to any scenario where they have even a *chance* to get relegated. Hence, if you’re going to get Big Ten and SEC members involved, the only way to convince them is to be permanent members of the top level. If the rest of college football doesn’t agree to it, then the deal is DOA and those lower levels can just let the Big Ten and SEC keep hoovering up all of the revenue and power for themselves.

It’s not about fairness, but rather what it would take to get the Big Ten and SEC to even consider this type of system. Frankly, I don’t think any type of pro/rel system has any chance, but at least the OP addressed a major obstacle that actual relegation for any Big Ten or SEC schools would be a 100% non-starter for them. The beggars below the P2 can’t be choosers and remember the Golden Rule.

thats why I said fantasy. I'm well aware that schools that were in the right room 100 years ago can protect their lucrative payout by keeping the status quo. I understand its a non starter and won't ever happen.

But its fun to think about. A meritocracy is what keeps non blue blood fans engaged. Think about how much fun a late season northwestern-vanderbilt contest would be when their seasons are typically over around week 2 as far as national relavance goes. Same with the end of year battles.

The point is that if we're going to go through the exercise to make a promotion relegation system, why make it so those most deserving of relegation aren't?

We will never have pro/rel in college sports for one simple reason. The few schools who might want it are ones that no higher tier conference wants to associate with, and no school wants to risk getting what could amount to a death penalty for its athletic program. This is purely a fan fantasy.

(01-16-2024 12:43 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 11:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 11:26 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 07:29 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 06:37 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I do think the numbers are in the ball park as far as the revenue, and would be a decent compromise, although the Tier 3 wouldn't be nearly worth as much. At least a few million less. However, I don't think the "permanent" schools can last beyond '26. You just can't have a system that doctors in programs and call it promo/rele. Teams can start in said positions, but there has to be some mechanism for schools like tOSU and Bama to get relegated... at SOME point.

Creative, but not enough flexibility here.

Yeah, I thought I might have been little low on tier 1 and high on Tiers 3 & 4. I was trying to be a x2, x4, x6 format with revenue payout. Maybe over time, start to gradually reduce the number of teams who are permanent, but the main issue with pro/rel is no one wants to lose money by dropping down, which was why I gave teams a floor so they don't lose money, but can make more money earning promotion and think this may be the closest thing to pro/rel we get in college football and maybe basketball. Doesn't mean it'll actually happen though.

why would you create a fantasy about promotion/relegation but not have promotion/relegation?

Vanderbilt and Northwestern would finish at the bottom of the league almost every year. They would be relegated.

If I was implementing promotion/relegation I'd structure it differently with less teams:

60 teams in 6 10 team football only conferences, arranged by some metric (SP+?) where geography isn't taken into consideration Everyone plays 3 OOC games for traditional rivalries/payday whatever. 9 conference games. The winner of the "champions league" is essentially the national champion The last place team of each conference plays the winner of the next lower conference in a playoff bowl winner stays up. The 2 last place teams on the lowest conference are automatically relegated to what is now Div 1-aa and the national champion and runner up of 1-AA promoted. Other teams in the conferences that have winning records not in playoffs are free to accept bowl invitations to regional/national bowls with other semi-pro teams or college teams.

The media rights are sold as a package for the whole division and divvied up by conference affilition per year.

To be upfront, I personally can’t stand promotion/relegation proposals as a general matter. It’s not that they’re good or bad, but rather they make little to no sense to the key parties involved outside of those hoping to get promoted. Fans generally focus on positive upside outcomes of promotion, but university presidents generally focus more on eliminating potential negative downside outcomes (which are inherent in relegation), so there’s a total disconnect. A dream university president budget isn’t rocketing income in great seasons, but rather nice and stable steady increases in income annually regardless of performance.

Having said that, I get what the OP is trying to do here in addressing what I’ve stated: if you’re going to get the power players (particularly the Big Ten and SEC) to even think about anything close to a promotion/relegation system, you essentially have to eliminate the relegation aspect for them or else they’ll never agree to it. Your second paragraph pointing to how Northwestern and Vanderbilt would get annually relegated (although if you’ve paid attention to the Big Ten standings, that’s actually not the case for Northwestern, but I digress) is exactly why those schools would never agree to any scenario where they have even a *chance* to get relegated. Hence, if you’re going to get Big Ten and SEC members involved, the only way to convince them is to be permanent members of the top level. If the rest of college football doesn’t agree to it, then the deal is DOA and those lower levels can just let the Big Ten and SEC keep hoovering up all of the revenue and power for themselves.

It’s not about fairness, but rather what it would take to get the Big Ten and SEC to even consider this type of system. Frankly, I don’t think any type of pro/rel system has any chance, but at least the OP addressed a major obstacle that actual relegation for any Big Ten or SEC schools would be a 100% non-starter for them. The beggars below the P2 can’t be choosers and remember the Golden Rule.

thats why I said fantasy. I'm well aware that schools that were in the right room 100 years ago can protect their lucrative payout by keeping the status quo. I understand its a non starter and won't ever happen.

But its fun to think about. A meritocracy is what keeps non blue blood fans engaged. Think about how much fun a late season northwestern-vanderbilt contest would be when their seasons are typically over around week 2 as far as national relavance goes. Same with the end of year battles.

The point is that if we're going to go through the exercise to make a promotion relegation system, why make it so those most deserving of relegation aren't?

I guess I look at it the other way: just having a fantasy scenario really doesn’t interest me. Everyone can have their own personal fantasy of whatever system that they want and you can’t really debate it because what one personally values can be totally different from another person… and there’s nothing wrong with that because we’re all different human beings. It’s just that it’s not very intellectually stimulating to me because a proposal that has no real life parameters won’t go anywhere.

However, what’s interesting (at least to me) is figuring out how to take a proposal and test it against whether it can actually be implemented in real life. Do the economics work? Are the parties properly incentivized? Why would a school like Northwestern or Vanderbilt ever reasonably agree to this?

So, I give the OP credit in trying to form a system that actually tries to look at the implementation aspect of it as opposed to simply, “This is how I would do things if I were the all-powerful king of sports.” Having said that, I still personally can’t stand promotion/relegation proposals in college sports as a general matter, so it’s no loss to me if others don’t like it.

(01-16-2024 02:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 12:43 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 11:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 11:26 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(01-16-2024 07:29 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  Yeah, I thought I might have been little low on tier 1 and high on Tiers 3 & 4. I was trying to be a x2, x4, x6 format with revenue payout. Maybe over time, start to gradually reduce the number of teams who are permanent, but the main issue with pro/rel is no one wants to lose money by dropping down, which was why I gave teams a floor so they don't lose money, but can make more money earning promotion and think this may be the closest thing to pro/rel we get in college football and maybe basketball. Doesn't mean it'll actually happen though.

why would you create a fantasy about promotion/relegation but not have promotion/relegation?

Vanderbilt and Northwestern would finish at the bottom of the league almost every year. They would be relegated.

If I was implementing promotion/relegation I'd structure it differently with less teams:

60 teams in 6 10 team football only conferences, arranged by some metric (SP+?) where geography isn't taken into consideration Everyone plays 3 OOC games for traditional rivalries/payday whatever. 9 conference games. The winner of the "champions league" is essentially the national champion The last place team of each conference plays the winner of the next lower conference in a playoff bowl winner stays up. The 2 last place teams on the lowest conference are automatically relegated to what is now Div 1-aa and the national champion and runner up of 1-AA promoted. Other teams in the conferences that have winning records not in playoffs are free to accept bowl invitations to regional/national bowls with other semi-pro teams or college teams.

The media rights are sold as a package for the whole division and divvied up by conference affilition per year.

To be upfront, I personally can’t stand promotion/relegation proposals as a general matter. It’s not that they’re good or bad, but rather they make little to no sense to the key parties involved outside of those hoping to get promoted. Fans generally focus on positive upside outcomes of promotion, but university presidents generally focus more on eliminating potential negative downside outcomes (which are inherent in relegation), so there’s a total disconnect. A dream university president budget isn’t rocketing income in great seasons, but rather nice and stable steady increases in income annually regardless of performance.

Having said that, I get what the OP is trying to do here in addressing what I’ve stated: if you’re going to get the power players (particularly the Big Ten and SEC) to even think about anything close to a promotion/relegation system, you essentially have to eliminate the relegation aspect for them or else they’ll never agree to it. Your second paragraph pointing to how Northwestern and Vanderbilt would get annually relegated (although if you’ve paid attention to the Big Ten standings, that’s actually not the case for Northwestern, but I digress) is exactly why those schools would never agree to any scenario where they have even a *chance* to get relegated. Hence, if you’re going to get Big Ten and SEC members involved, the only way to convince them is to be permanent members of the top level. If the rest of college football doesn’t agree to it, then the deal is DOA and those lower levels can just let the Big Ten and SEC keep hoovering up all of the revenue and power for themselves.

It’s not about fairness, but rather what it would take to get the Big Ten and SEC to even consider this type of system. Frankly, I don’t think any type of pro/rel system has any chance, but at least the OP addressed a major obstacle that actual relegation for any Big Ten or SEC schools would be a 100% non-starter for them. The beggars below the P2 can’t be choosers and remember the Golden Rule.

thats why I said fantasy. I'm well aware that schools that were in the right room 100 years ago can protect their lucrative payout by keeping the status quo. I understand its a non starter and won't ever happen.

But its fun to think about. A meritocracy is what keeps non blue blood fans engaged. Think about how much fun a late season northwestern-vanderbilt contest would be when their seasons are typically over around week 2 as far as national relavance goes. Same with the end of year battles.

The point is that if we're going to go through the exercise to make a promotion relegation system, why make it so those most deserving of relegation aren't?

I guess I look at it the other way: just having a fantasy scenario really doesn’t interest me. Everyone can have their own personal fantasy of whatever system that they want and you can’t really debate it because what one personally values can be totally different from another person… and there’s nothing wrong with that because we’re all different human beings. It’s just that it’s not very intellectually stimulating to me because a proposal that has no real life parameters won’t go anywhere.

However, what’s interesting (at least to me) is figuring out how to take a proposal and test it against whether it can actually be implemented in real life. Do the economics work? Are the parties properly incentivized? Why would a school like Northwestern or Vanderbilt ever reasonably agree to this?

So, I give the OP credit in trying to form a system that actually tries to look at the implementation aspect of it as opposed to simply, “This is how I would do things if I were the all-powerful king of sports.” Having said that, I still personally can’t stand promotion/relegation proposals in college sports as a general matter, so it’s no loss to me if others don’t like it.

this system just takes the leading benefit of promotion relegation off the board.
College sports has promotion relegation already, its just that the criterion have been somewhat ephemeral and not merit based.