Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAILG8R
It's strange to me how many don't understand how much more value the relegation model brings from a media perspective which is $$$ which is THE thing that drives all decisions in college football.
Two conferences unrelated do not have the same value as two conferences with relegation. And yes the media and the general sports fan will care even though the teams involved aren't big names.
While I don't believe relegation is in the cards at this time the model does not call for two separate conferences. It would be one conference with two divisions receiving an unequal share of the one overall tv deal.
Whether this comes through a relegation system or just a normal construction the unequal shares scenario is coming for sure. Boise gets a carve out now..Other schools will want one too. To entice schools to vote for this new system is to make it performance based. Have a great year, get more of the pie.
But..I don't think any of this can or will happen until the current tv deal expires in 2026. By the by..There is some notion that exit fees will go away when the tv deal expires. That is not the case. It will remain at 17 million with 2 years notice and 34 for one, unless the members vote to reduce or end it. It is also not based solely on the tv deal though that is an element..It is based upon 3 times the average annual distribution. The distribution for 22/23 was around 6.2 million bucks.
In a reverse merger with the all MW members joining the the Pac something, the MW would then vote to dissolve and the exit fees from the MW would end. However, it is possible and perhaps likely that the Pac something members would vote to reinstate exit fees. The amount to be determined.
MW schools are in solid bargaining shape. It is the Pac 2 twins who are behind the 8 ball.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The_Sicatoka
That merged CUSA+SBC relegation game between UNC-Charlotte and Arkansas State will draw tens of viewers.
Who's trying to create a relegation alignment between those conferences?? No one
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
While I don't believe relegation is in the cards at this time the model does not call for two separate conferences. It would be one conference with two divisions receiving an unequal share of the one overall tv deal.
Whether this comes through a relegation system or just a normal construction the unequal shares scenario is coming for sure. Boise gets a carve out now..Other schools will want one too. To entice schools to vote for this new system is to make it performance based. Have a great year, get more of the pie.
But..I don't think any of this can or will happen until the current tv deal expires in 2026. By the by..There is some notion that exit fees will go away when the tv deal expires. That is not the case. It will remain at 17 million with 2 years notice and 34 for one, unless the members vote to reduce or end it. It is also not based solely on the tv deal though that is an element..It is based upon 3 times the average annual distribution. The distribution for 22/23 was around 6.2 million bucks.
In a reverse merger with the all MW members joining the the Pac something, the MW would then vote to dissolve and the exit fees from the MW would end. However, it is possible and perhaps likely that the Pac something members would vote to reinstate exit fees. The amount to be determined.
MW schools are in solid bargaining shape. It is the Pac 2 twins who are behind the 8 ball.
Every account of the relegation model I have seen is very clearly two separate conferences.
The chances of it happening are close to none but not 0. It's clear that so many either want to point out all the reasons it won't work either because they don't think it can/will happen and therefore want to be right in the end or aren't able to think past what college football has been for the last 30 years. Either way I'm not sure I'll comment on the relegation talk until some new info comes out.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAILG8R
Every account of the relegation model I have seen is very clearly two separate conferences.
The chances of it happening are close to none but not 0. It's clear that so many either want to point out all the reasons it won't work either because they don't think it can/will happen and therefore want to be right in the end or aren't able to think past what college football has been for the last 30 years. Either way I'm not sure I'll comment on the relegation talk until some new info comes out.
Actually the original idea put forth by the Boise deputy AD was for 3 separate conferences of 8 each on 3 separate tiers. There is no votes for that, there is no votes lined up yet to do any relegation either but the one conference with 2 or 3 divisions is one of the ideas out there that has a bit more juice. I do not think this will happen. You just can't get schools to vote to get less money to be in a minor league conference or division.
I think we will be looking at the Pac 14 or the MW 14 when all is said and done. That doesn't mean they won't expand to 16 or even 18 over the next few years, though. Too many balls in the air at the moment to make a massive change like emulating European professional soccer leagues. The teams that get bounced out there are still rich. Thinking G5's can just roll through this unscathed is perhaps a bit of wishful thinking.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IndyBison
The issue with relegation in a situation like this the hard split it creates. Let's say there are 16 teams and each conference has 8. The 8th place this year may have a good team but they go 1-6 or 2-5 in conference play because everyone is better than them. The 9th place team goes 7-0 or 6-1 and wins the lower conference because they are better than everyone else. If you are getting to the end of the current season do you see teams tanking to not be the last place team in the upper conference? Probably not because they'll still want a chance at the conference the next year and if additional money is in play for being in that conference. You can take any P5 and G6 conference and there will always be overlap in teams from the top conference to the bottom conference. Same when comparing G5/FCS, FCS/D2, etc. I do think this idea has some merit here though, and I would be curious to see it play out. With only OSU and WSU and whoever else joins them they are not a P5 conference. But they would be the core a very good G5 conference. And I assume they would likely stay in the top half of that conference most years.
Here's the thing ... being a P5 has never really been about how good the teams are, any more than FBS vs FCS is.
It's mostly about large markets, television and money. SMU is not very good, but bought their way into the club.
"P5" Stanford is Sagarin #102, Arizona St is #91, and I'm sure there are plenty more like Vanderbilt.
The "P5" because of money can often buy better coaches and players. They simply take who they want from the G5. They also managed to leverage that into NCAA/FBS advantages.
1) The P5 conferences were designated as "autonomy" conferences with more freedom than others.
2) The P5 thru the CFP corporation have gained a lot of voting and monetary control of the playoffs. They receive more votes and more money than the G5 conferences do.
The high and mighty P5 are concerned that some lowly G5 schools might gain the advantages they bestowed on the PAC, and will do everything they can to kill it. But legally and legislatively, the PAC carries those benefits as long as it can survive.
I would love for the good ol boys money club to be busted up by Promotion/Relegation. Being able to move up based on merit is how the system should work. We all know by now it doesn't, or SHSU and KSU would not be FBS.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
My late Saturday nights are usually spent watching MW or PAC-12 games. Will the teams that have left the PAC-12 still be filling those time slots? I am guessing the bigger conferences won't want games on that late? Maybe? If so, is there more money to be made in filling those available times slots? Will USC host Penn State at 10 pm EST? Will the BIG-10 demand west coast games start earlier? Could the late night relegation/promotion leagues have a niche market? While not ideal, it is better than Tuesday night games, although I watch those as well.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Won't the TV networks dictate the times for the games? We already have Colorado hosting USC kicking of at 10:00 AM local time. I hope the college kids can get out of bed that early or stay up that late for an all-nighter although it won't have the same vibe as the CSU game.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ringthebells
My late Saturday nights are usually spent watching MW or PAC-12 games. Will the teams that have left the PAC-12 still be filling those time slots? I am guessing the bigger conferences won't want games on that late? Maybe? If so, is there more money to be made in filling those available times slots? Will USC host Penn State at 10 pm EST? Will the BIG-10 demand west coast games start earlier? Could the late night relegation/promotion leagues have a niche market? While not ideal, it is better than Tuesday night games, although I watch those as well.
For awhile, you could count on Wyoming being in that slot...I really miss that...
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAILG8R
Who's trying to create a relegation alignment between those conferences?? No one
If it's a wonderful idea wouldn't everyone start doing it?
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The_Sicatoka
If it's a wonderful idea wouldn't everyone start doing it?
Not with those two. It would mostly make sense to pair a "P5" with a "G5"
Problem is that most of the P5 conferences have zero incentive to do this. The P5 generally has all the leverage.
There's a long shot chance if PAC/MWC did it, it might create some pressure or financial carrots for others. It would be groundbreaking if it happens at all, which is why there is so much buzz about it. It could make sense for PAC/MWC because it would be a compromise for both in a unique situation, that could bring financial benefits for both sides.
