Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The_Sicatoka
Sixteen schools, plus two conference entities, each with individual interests and concerns, coming to a written agreement amenable to all. And that's before the evaluation on impacts of existing contractual agreements (MWC media deal, what residuals the 2PAC has).
That's a lawyer's wet dream for billable hours.
No, don’t you understand? Bison fans want it so it must be easy and they should just do it lol. Where the fans say “omg, how fun - teams playing for their programs’ lives - how dramatic and exciting!” administrators are saying “sounds like an effing nightmare, I’ll pass”
Look I want it to happen probably the most out of anyone here but that means nothing to career administrators that have made a life out of avoiding risk at every turn. Public budgets are such that consistency is top dog.
Now, show me an entire conference that is as desperate as the PAC2, and I’ll muster up some hope. The MW is the complete opposite of desperate right now. They’ll just sit and wait for the PAC2 to fall in their lap.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
I almost wish the FCS, say the MVFC and BigSky, would try this relegation model.
Quality of competition improves and appeal of the product may garner more eyeballs and dollars. If nothing else, it appeals to a broader fan base just due to the novelty of it.
Why not? Flame away.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
There may need to be some kind of revenue sharing between both groups or blended budgets for both groups to limit the variability year to year You can't have a $400k coach one year in the G5 conference and pay him $1.2m the next year and then drop it to $400k if they are relegated back. You many need to set these coaches in the $500k-$700k range and provide shared conference bonuses for those who qualify for the higher conference. There are probably some other creative things like that they could do to make it work. The idea is interesting in this context but these scenarios are showing why it doesn't work as well in the collegiate space as it does for some professional leagues.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KSBisonFan
I almost wish the FCS, say the MVFC and BigSky, would try this relegation model.
Quality of competition improves and appeal of the product may garner more eyeballs and dollars. If nothing else, it appeals to a broader fan base just due to the novelty of it.
Why not? Flame away.
I do too. But itd be much more likely that the top half of the MVFC and Big Sky just broke off to create their own conference. Why allow the little fishies a seat at the table? For the fans’ sake? Ha!
All this romanticizing about promotion/relegation seems to avoid bringing up the fact that the major European soccer clubs all tried breaking away from their promotion/relegation systems and were only stopped when governments got involved. 100 years of tradition and fan expectation nearly scrapped away.
For what? Consolidation of money and power. Happens every time
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
No, don’t you understand? Bison fans want it so it must be easy and they should just do it lol. Where the fans say “omg, how fun - teams playing for their programs’ lives - how dramatic and exciting!” administrators are saying “sounds like an effing nightmare, I’ll pass”
Look I want it to happen probably the most out of anyone here but that means nothing to career administrators that have made a life out of avoiding risk at every turn. Public budgets are such that consistency is top dog.
Now, show me an entire conference that is as desperate as the PAC2, and I’ll muster up some hope. The MW is the complete opposite of desperate right now. They’ll just sit and wait for the PAC2 to fall in their lap.
While I tend to agree its unlikely, never say never. Stranger things have happened, and there's a strong financial motive for the PAC/MWC schools to keep both conferences alive if possible.
Whats fascinating to me is this concept actually came from one of the MWC schools, and it seems to have some level of discussion/traction among the ADs. If it was being proposed by outsiders, I'd say its DOA. You are correct that figuring out how to make the financials work for everyone is the biggest hurdle.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
While I tend to agree its unlikely, never say never. Stranger things have happened, and there's a strong financial motive for the PAC/MWC schools to keep both conferences alive if possible.
Whats fascinating to me is this concept actually came from one of the MWC schools, and it seems to have some level of discussion/traction among the ADs. If it was being proposed by outsiders, I'd say its DOA. You are correct that figuring out how to make the financials work for everyone is the biggest hurdle.
That’s the thing. Stuff like this has previously come from random writers on twitter, some obscure sports site, or skunkapekiller… this report is literally from someone who essentially helps with the decision making processes for the conference. This is new.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
heffray
That’s the thing. Stuff like this has previously come from random writers on twitter, some obscure sports site, or skunkapekiller… this report is literally from someone who essentially helps with the decision making processes for the conference. This is new.
Think of it this way: if the PAC/MWC don't make this work, they all squeeze into one conference home, that maybe gets a facelift and a few upgrades. If they can make it work, they get shared ownership of two conference homes, and have rules about who lives where. What large family would say no to a second home and more money? It only doesn't work if they can't cooperate and get into squabbles over money. Cooperation or greed will determine the outcome.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
Think of it this way: if the PAC/MWC don't make this work, they all squeeze into one conference home, that maybe gets a facelift and a few upgrades. If they can make it work, they get shared ownership of two conference homes, and have rules about who lives where. What large family would say no to a second home and more money? It only doesn't work if they can't cooperate and get into squabbles over money. Cooperation or greed will determine the outcome.
The Cinderella angle of adding some hi-po FCS teams is intriguing for them, too, clearly. Why else would NDSU be on their radar…? Can’t be money… that’s the only reason I’m largely skeptical this will include NDSU…
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
heffray
The Cinderella angle of adding some hi-po FCS teams is intriguing for them, too, clearly. Why else would NDSU be on their radar…? Can’t be money… that’s the only reason I’m largely skeptical this will include NDSU…
The interesting thing is a lot of the PAC expansion targets are already in MWC. They would need two more to make this work.
AAC has a few potential targets: Tulane, Memphis, UTSA. Maybe Tulsa or UNT. The money would need to support AAC buyout.
Other than that, our competition would likely be Sac St, Montana and MSU. Maybe UCD for the market/location.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IndyBison
There may need to be some kind of revenue sharing between both groups or blended budgets for both groups to limit the variability year to year You can't have a $400k coach one year in the G5 conference and pay him $1.2m the next year and then drop it to $400k if they are relegated back. You many need to set these coaches in the $500k-$700k range and provide shared conference bonuses for those who qualify for the higher conference. There are probably some other creative things like that they could do to make it work. The idea is interesting in this context but these scenarios are showing why it doesn't work as well in the collegiate space as it does for some professional leagues.
I don’t see why it should be harder in the collegiate context than professional. Player pay is way less variable for the college programs. The coaches will get what they can negotiate. Promotion bonus, automatic base pay change for promotion/relegation, lower base with bonus for staying up. Parachutes or escalators over a couple of seasons at promotion relegation. These things are not really that hard to figure out and there’s no one right answer.
