Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
New NCAA bylaw saying that if two conferences adopt a promotion/relegation agreement the lesser conference forfeits its autobid. The NCAA’s lawyers would give that setup the “Sonny on the Causeway” treatment.
Of course maybe that’s what they want. A perceived continuation of the degradation of the college athletics landscape. Then those in power can remake it to their liking or break off completely.
But the lesser conference isn't a lesser conference in olympic sports where all auto bids matter. They are simply their own stable conference without relegation.
So you have MWC-olympic and PAC-olympic and MWC-football and PAC-Football. Make it 4 conferences if you must with relegation happening only in the football conferences.
I don't think anyone is dreaming about the lesser football conference getting any sort of auto bid to the CFP. I haven't seen a single mention of that.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
B.Schlossman Fan Club
How would a team stuck in the bottom division benefit from this regelation model? I don’t see anymore money going to these teams than what they get now. OSU and WSU not wanting the bottom feeders of the MWC through a complete merger is why they will never get enough votes to approve this model.
At least two or three ways:
1) More bids among the teams means increased potential to win an autobid in one or more sports.
2) Potentially more money for everyone, depending on the media deal, and how they decide to allocate money between the two conferences.
3) Teams in the "lower" division have better odds of a winning record and making bowl games than if it was one conference. They also get at least one or two cross-conference games against the upper division/conference as part of the Boise proposal.
The reasons this could work:
1) It's better for the "lower" MWC schools than if the PAC just outright poaches them. It gives high performers a guaranteed path upward.
2) It's better for the PAC and "upper" MWC schools than an outright merger in one conference. It's the best answer for PAC if they are unable to poach who they want.
In short - it's a compromise that could benefit all. But egos and greed would have to get out of the way.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
At least two or three ways:
1) More bids among the teams means increased potential to win an autobid in one or more sports.
2) Potentially more money for everyone, depending on the media deal, and how they decide to allocate money between the two conferences.
3) Teams in the "lower" division have better odds of a winning record and making bowl games than if it was one conference. They also get at least one or two cross-conference games against the upper division/conference as part of the Boise proposal.
That was easy wasn't it.
There are so many positives for schools that aren't in the P4 to be in a football only relegation model people think it has to have some underlying negative trapdoor. They just can't imagine that something other than what they've known for the last 50 years might just be a better concept then being an also ran. This model doesn't make any of the programs more relevant in the landscape of the CFP imo but it does make them more relevant in the landscape of entertainment $$$ and as we know that is literally the only thing that matters in college football.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
At least two or three ways:
1) More bids among the teams means increased potential to win an autobid in one or more sports.
2) Potentially more money for everyone, depending on the media deal, and how they decide to allocate money between the two conferences.
3) Teams in the "lower" division have better odds of a winning record and making bowl games than if it was one conference. They also get at least one or two cross-conference games against the upper division/conference as part of the Boise proposal.
The reasons this could work:
1) It's better for the "lower" MWC schools than if the PAC just outright poaches them. It gives high performers a guaranteed path upward.
2) It's better for the PAC and "upper" MWC schools than an outright merger in one conference. It's the best answer for PAC if they are unable to poach who they want.
In short - it's a compromise that could benefit all. But egos and greed would have to get out of the way.
1) NCAA gonna choke on that one going down
2) The legendary “more money for everyone” lol
3) Why would they trade for “one or two crossover games” when half of their conference slate could be these better games? Do they want a better record or better opponents?
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAILG8R
That was easy wasn't it.
There are so many positives for schools that aren't in the P4 to be in a football only relegation model people think it has to have some underlying negative trapdoor. They just can't imagine that something other than what they've known for the last 50 years might just be a better concept then being an also ran. This model doesn't make any of the programs more relevant in the landscape of the CFP imo but it does make them more relevant in the landscape of entertainment $$$ and as we know that is literally the only thing that matters in college football.
The negative underlying trapdoor is the NCAA. Always has been.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t kill for this. I’m all about upward mobility in all things, especially when it’s NDSU that is potentially on the receiving end.
I’m saying don’t get your hopes up.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
1) NCAA gonna choke on that one going down
2) The legendary “more money for everyone” lol
3) Why would they trade for “one or two crossover games” when half of their conference slate could be these better games? Do they want a better record or better opponents?
It gives them both in a way.
They can play in a more evenly matched conference, and thus win more games (better record).
At the same time they get guaranteed games against better opponents (PAC). That is a huge barrier for a lot of G5 conferences. Do you have any idea how hard it is getting for G5 teams to land P5 home games? G5 schools that are very good are finding it hard to get the P5 to play them at all now.
The cherry on top is if they prove they can win that lower division, they move up, and get even better competition and opportunity. It's win-win-win on scheduling.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAILG8R
$$$$$
You don't see this model as generating more $$ than the two separate conferences doing their own thing?
I don't care which teams go where in a standard conference model they are nowhere near as valuable as they are as a connected relegation model from a media contract standpoint.
The teams that are at the bottom would also be at the bottom of their shitty single conference worth less money. The upper teams also aren't as valuable without the "risk" of relegation to sell on the media side so they need the bottom feeders to fill out the roster of schools.
I have a hard time seeing schools willingly vote themselves into a lesser conference for less money. I also don't see any interest outside of MW fans in watching a a risk of relegation game between two schools fans outside of the MW never watched or cared about before. That is not something that will be more valuable.
I do think, if there is some sort of merger individual schools might see a chance to earn a larger payout based on performance. But even that will be a hard sell. OSU and Wazzu are in a pickle. The MW doesn't have to do anything. I just don't see any conference make up that hurts some members just for the benefit of the Pac 2 twins.
I also don't think adding 2 small market teams will add much to any potential contract.
However, I do hope they can work out something that is more equitable for everyone, because I would really enjoy sharing a conference with the twins. They are in the neighborhood and have been playing against MW schools for a long time.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
It gives them both in a way.
They can play in a more evenly matched conference, and thus win more games (better record).
At the same time they get guaranteed games against better opponents (PAC). That is a huge barrier for a lot of G5 conferences. Do you have any idea how hard it is getting for G5 teams to land P5 home games? G5 schools that are very good are finding it hard to get the P5 to play them at all now.
The cherry on top is if they prove they can win that lower division, they move up, and get even better competition and opportunity. It's win-win-win on scheduling.
Looking at Boise, UNLV, SDSU schedules this year? Apparently not very hard lol
The last thing I’ll say before I turn my pessimism on my family and home life for the rest of the day (kidding) is that there’s a needle that needs to be threaded between making the PAC schools happy, the elite MW schools happy and the rest of the MW schools happy. That is going to be very difficult even on some of the easier details.
And then if you can find something that is so great that everyone’s happy, you have to pass it by all the other schools in the NCAA.
I will say that I enjoy the debate and conversation and again I hope it happens.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
It gives them both in a way.
They can play in a more evenly matched conference, and thus win more games (better record).
At the same time they get guaranteed games against better opponents (PAC). That is a huge barrier for a lot of G5 conferences. Do you have any idea how hard it is getting for G5 teams to land P5 home games? G5 schools that are very good are finding it hard to get the P5 to play them at all now.
The cherry on top is if they prove they can win that lower division, they move up, and get even better competition and opportunity. It's win-win-win on scheduling.
A conference with the Pac2 and 6 MW schools would not be P5. This idea does nothing more than create two G5 conferences in the region. If it is just for football only, it doesn't even get you an additional automatic bid for the NCAA basketball tourney.
Who decides who goes where when you start this up? The fairest way is to draw names out of a hat. 8 schools per conference means 7 conference football games and 1 crossover against somebody in the other league. Who decides that? Wyoming and CSU have been playing each other for well over 125 years. If they land in separate conferences that may not get a game against each other for years. What exactly is the value in that?
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
8 schools per conference means 7 conference football games and 1 crossover against somebody in the other league. Who decides that? Wyoming and CSU have been playing each other for well over 125 years. If they land in separate conferences that may not get a game against each other for years. What exactly is the value in that?
Believe the Boise proposal said the crossover games would replace one or two OOC games.
Lots of conferences have "protected" rivalries in their divisions. Either those two can play OOC or negotiate to protect that game. Doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me.
