A new and better FBS thread

Where is all the talk coming from about a poison pill that would allow the upper conference to "slam the door shut" and stop participating in relegation?

In a simple scenario only the bottom two teams that would get relegated would have to worry about moving down and realistically the top 6 will largely be the same year in and year out. Those top 6 don't have to worry about being relegated so they don't give a shit about slamming the door shut. IMO the relegation model drives $$$ from TV/Streaming networks and by slamming the door shut those "haves" run the risk of not being as valuable on their own.

Yes it's unlikely to happen but it's funny to me how many say it can't or won't happen based on the old way of doing things.

Choose to stay in the G5, get G5 $$ or doing something innovative and drive your revenue up near the upper end G5 and lower P4/5 conferences?

This would be amazing and lots of fun. Two reasons why I don’t think it will happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bisonaudit

They’re on the wrong side of the fence and the gate is welded shut today. If they do nothing it stays that way.

Pretty sure the Presidents and ADs are already worried about getting fired if their football team has a bad year.

I have no illusions about this thing actually happening but these seem like insubstantial reasons for why it won’t work.

---

They’re all on the same side of the fence right now. Everyone who is a decision maker at any of those schools currently has a job and things are peachy. The schools each get a $17M payout from the conference. If they sit on their hands they’ll get an even bigger payout when the PAC2 suck it up and join.

If you’re any one of SDSU, UNLV, Colorado State, Boise State, Utah State, Air Force or Fresno State, you run the risk of all the others being in the top half with WSU and OSU when they decide to cut anchor. Then you’re stuck in a conference with Nevada, New Mexico, SJSU, Hawaii and a couple FCS call ups. That new MW is paying closer to $1.7M a year. And you now get to explain what the hell happened in every job interview for the rest of your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Professor Chaos

Wouldn't that still be a good thing from NDSU's POV??? It was always in NDSU's best interest to have the Pac raid the MWC so if this is what it takes so be it. I'd agree that the promotion/relegation is unlikely but I don't think it's as outlandish as you do. If it gives value to the Pac-2 and enough of the MWC to make it so they can use it as an excuse to combine while maintaining the Pac name and assets while avoiding the gargantuan MWC exit fees it leaves the same expansion opportunities for western based FCS schools into (what's left of) the MWC.

---

I didn’t say it wouldn’t be good for NDSU. I said it would never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TAILG8R

Where is all the talk coming from about a poison pill that would allow the upper conference to "slam the door shut" and stop participating in relegation?

In a simple scenario only the bottom two teams that would get relegated would have to worry about moving down and realistically the top 6 will largely be the same year in and year out. Those top 6 don't have to worry about being relegated so they don't give a shit about slamming the door shut. IMO the relegation model drives $$$ from TV/Streaming networks and by slamming the door shut those "haves" run the risk of not being as valuable on their own.

Yes it's unlikely to happen but it's funny to me how many say it can't or won't happen based on the old way of doing things.

Choose to stay in the G5, get G5 $$ or doing something innovative and drive your revenue up near the upper end G5 and lower P4/5 conferences?

---

Where is all the talk coming from that now all of the sudden both the PAC2 and every mountain west school is getting more money doing this vs those schools just joining the conference?

And where is the talk coming from that the other power conferences will just let the PAC pretend to be a power conference again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NDSU92

Where is all the talk coming from that now all of the sudden both the PAC2 and every mountain west school is getting more money doing this vs those schools just joining the conference?

And where is the talk coming from that the other power conferences will just let the PAC pretend to be a power conference again?

---

I guess from my perspective the PAC2 is currently worth about $.03 on a TV deal. Just because they USED to get $17m/yr doesn't mean that is what they can command now. Especially after losing all the schools that mattered and sucking up schools from a league that gets like $5m/yr.

And because the reason ANYTHING happens is money.

So if you are the PAC2 and the top of the MWC you can either look at joining and bringing in maybe $6-7m/yr on a TV deal or come up with some crazy in your face Coach Prime type shit that will demand attention and eyeballs and maybe push that to $15m/yr

So again, why would the top 8 teams in this scenario all of a sudden slam the door shut and go back to being an also ran conference getting what would most likely be a lesser TV deal than they had by being in a unique situation of the relegation model?

IF this were to happen and that is a massive if, I would be willing to bet it would be the start of a wider relegation model in college football. So maybe, just maybe(again .000001% chance) they will get support behind the scenes from TV/Streaming, NCAA, etc that would have some skin in the game to come up with a model to replace the current FBS all in one boat model with something that could potentially create more revenue. Everyone says the break of G5 and P5 won't happen because of money, well relegation is one way to make it happen and drive more $$ because more than 3-4 games a week matter to the larger audience.

OK taking my tinfoil hat back off and setting it on the desk for now.

That McFeely article had a quote that I found really interesting…

“ Dellenger wrote the schedule could include:

A Bracket Buster Weekend in early to mid-November, where pairings are determined two weeks prior and are based off of current standings with the intent on arranging compelling, crossover matchups. The entire season builds up to a crescendo of a final week that features three games:
- A Relegation Game between the sixth- and seventh-placed teams in the Pac-12. The loser is relegated to the Mountain West. The eighth-place finisher in the regular season is automatically relegated.
- A Promotion Game between the second- and third-placed teams in the Mountain West. The winner is promoted to the Pac-12. The regular-season champion of the Mountain West is automatically promoted to the Pac-12.
- The Pac-12 championship game, where the winner has a significant chance to advance to the newly expanded College Football Playoff.”

I find all of those hypothetical games wildly more interesting than any bowl games and at least as interesting, if not more interesting, than the conference championship games.

A conference championship game in an 8 team conference where everyone plays everyone makes little sense to me but $$$$.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bisonaudit

A conference championship game in an 8 team conference where everyone plays everyone makes little sense to me but $$$$.

---

The Big 12, when they were 10 teams, played a full round robin but still played the conference championship game after a few years of not doing it. IIRC they were more concerned about strengthening the resume of their champion to get them into the 4 team playoff since the other P5 league champs got a chance to put up impressive wins in conference title games right before the selection committee released their final rankings.

Of course I'm sure the extra money doesn't hurt either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heffray

That McFeely article had a quote that I found really interesting…

“ Dellenger wrote the schedule could include:

A Bracket Buster Weekend in early to mid-November, where pairings are determined two weeks prior and are based off of current standings with the intent on arranging compelling, crossover matchups. The entire season builds up to a crescendo of a final week that features three games:
- A Relegation Game between the sixth- and seventh-placed teams in the Pac-12. The loser is relegated to the Mountain West. The eighth-place finisher in the regular season is automatically relegated.
- A Promotion Game between the second- and third-placed teams in the Mountain West. The winner is promoted to the Pac-12. The regular-season champion of the Mountain West is automatically promoted to the Pac-12.
- The Pac-12 championship game, where the winner has a significant chance to advance to the newly expanded College Football Playoff.”

I find all of those hypothetical games wildly more interesting than any bowl games and at least as interesting, if not more interesting, than the conference championship games.

---

100% and those games instantly become nationally televised games on ESPN or whatever major linear channel you partner with.

Do or die relegation and promotion games before the playoffs and bowls … $$$$$$$$$

And as far as not knowing who you’re playing or where, does it matter at all? As long as you have two weeks notice and the conference pays for travel and logistics it’s a win win. Extra home game for the “top seeded” team in each of the two games. Playoff atmosphere in week 11.

There are a lot of details to figure out and that’s an under statement but this is the kind of shit that the TV schedulers drool over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes this model should happen, may end up “saving the sport” in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NDSU92

I didn’t say it wouldn’t be good for NDSU. I said it would never happen.

---

Just the mere theoretical possibility is reason to wait until the PAC/MWC shakeout completes before looking elsewhere.

There are still at least 2 or 3 scenarios which land us in MWC. But it will likely take months, probably until late Dec or Jan to know what 2PAC is going to do with certainty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TAILG8R

Here you go Chapo

---

Showing Chapo facts from a reputable reporter with connections is worthless if it doesn't agree with his narrative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigHorns

Showing Chapo facts from a reputable reporter with connections is worthless if it doesn't agree with his narrative.

---

mcfooly has ZERO connections. he just saw an article and did his own article on it. quite pathetic

I'm talking to Gloria. we will get this worked out

I’m 1 million percent interested in this PAC/MWC 2 tier league thing. I don’t see variable scheduling being a massive roadblock. Scheduling a “flex” relegation game in November with only a weeks notice is no different than any other playoff game that happens. The “welding the door shut” piece could be prevented by a statement in a contract saying you have buy outs for violating league precedent or whatever. Presidents and ADs concerned about getting canned for a bad season should be more concerned about the compete collapse of non P4 college football. Then as far as budgeting, I would be talking to other professions which have massive changes to revenue annually to get an idea of what to do. I’m guessing variable budgeting exists, and if it doesn’t, go talk to the finance professors on campus to make it happen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by land grant bison

I’m 1 million percent interested in this PAC/MWC 2 tier league thing. I don’t see variable scheduling being a massive roadblock. Scheduling a “flex” relegation game in November with only a weeks notice is no different than any other playoff game that happens. The “welding the door shut” piece could be prevented by a statement in a contract saying you have buy outs for violating league precedent or whatever. Presidents and ADs concerned about getting canned for a bad season should be more concerned about the compete collapse of non P4 college football. Then as far as budgeting, I would be talking to other professions which have massive changes to revenue annually to get an idea of what to do. I’m guessing variable budgeting exists, and if it doesn’t, go talk to the finance professors on campus to make it happen!

---

This......

Shouldn't 2PAC be most concerned about:

- lack of a media deal (money)
- that they're on the two-year waiver (they don't have 8 members to be a recognized conference)

If there was a time for this concept it was when the "airport meeting" happened that split the WAC16 into the MWC and WAC8. If they'd have gone "relegation" system in the WAC16 it may have held together.

Now there are so many moving parts (WasSU and OrSU futures, survival of PAC, competing interests in MWC*) I don't see how this could happen in under two years ... and that kills the PAC. It could take two years to draft the legal agreements.

Should relegation come to college sports starting at the FBS level seems foolhardy. Try it where there are two adjacent DII or DIII conferences looking to "reshuffle" and see how it works, and what we may not see until it's tried.


*SDSU will still have a wandering eye to the BXII; UWyo and the front range have to be concerned about another "airport meeting" where they'll get left out (and no WAC exit fees to cushion the blow)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka

Shouldn't 2PAC be most concerned about:

- lack of a media deal (money)
- that they're on the two-year waiver (they don't have 8 members to be a recognized conference)

If there was a time for this concept it was when the "airport meeting" happened that split the WAC16 into the MWC and WAC8. If they'd have gone "relegation" system in the WAC16 it may have held together.

Now there are so many moving parts (WasSU and OrSU futures, survival of PAC, competing interests in MWC*) I don't see how this could happen in under two years ... and that kills the PAC. It could take two years to draft the legal agreements.

Should relegation come to college sports starting at the FBS level seems foolhardy. Try it where there are two adjacent DII or DIII conferences looking to "reshuffle" and see how it works, and what we may not see until it's tried.


*SDSU will still have a wandering eye to the BXII; UWyo and the front range have to be concerned about another "airport meeting" where they'll get left out (and no WAC exit fees to cushion the blow)

---

Are DII and DIII really looking to reshuffle? I hoenstly don't know because I don't follow either at all.

lack of a media deal and the fact any new one will net the PAC next to nothing is exactly why they should be chasing this new idea

Two years to create the legal docs?? Who's their layer, CAS? (I kid, I kid). It wouldn't take two years to get this put together. A year, yes maybe even 18 months but as with any large project you take the deadline and work backward to create a plan to get it done in time.

IMO the FBS is exactly where this relegation model should happen for two very big reasons. 1) the talk of a split has been ongoing to years, relegation allows a split without a spit (IF this were to ever take hold across the FBS level) 2) No one gives a shit about DII and DIII athletics on a national scale so relegation and promotion dries exactly no excitement, no entertainment and no $$$. Let DII and DIII attempt to be what college athletics is/was supposed to be about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TAILG8R

Two years to create the legal docs?? Who's their layer, CAS? (I kid, I kid). It wouldn't take two years to get this put together. A year, yes maybe even 18 months but as with any large project you take the deadline and work backward to create a plan to get it done in time.

---

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.

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.

---

Like I said, don't hire CAS.




*I know I'm going to get a nasty fuck off message from CAS but I'm in a good mood and couldn't resist.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigHorns

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.

---

I’m not sure why they wouldn’t go for one of the 7 G5 schools in Texas? Maybe they actually get the fact that no one cares about their programs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bisonaudit

I’m not sure why they wouldn’t go for one of the 7 G5 schools in Texas? Maybe they actually get the fact that no one cares about their programs?

---

They won't touch the garbage that is CUSA now, but some of the AAC texas teams could be in play, especially the better ones like UTSA. The AAC exit fees could be a barrier also though, depending what the PAC/MWC can come up with money wise.

In theory, Texas St could also be in play, but they are at the bottom of SBC, and probably not a first choice. They have a reasonable fanbase and stadium, but have not been good on the field. Just hired UIW's coach, and maybe better this year. They knocked off Baylor and show signs of improving.

Went and double checked, with the departure of SMU to ACC, there's only 6 G5 in Texas.

CUSA: SHSU, UTEP
SBC: Texas St
AAC: UTSA, UNT, Rice

Of those, I'd say UTSA or UNT most likely. UNT is mediocre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigHorns

They won't touch the garbage that is CUSA now, but some of the AAC texas teams could be in play, especially the better ones like UTSA. The AAC exit fees could be a barrier also though, depending what the PAC/MWC can come up with money wise.

In theory, Texas St could also be in play, but they are at the bottom of SBC, and probably not a first choice. They have a reasonable fanbase and stadium, but have not been good on the field. Just hired UIW's coach, and maybe better this year. They knocked off Baylor and show signs of improving.

Went and double checked, with the departure of SMU to ACC, there's only 6 G5 in Texas.

CUSA: SHSU, UTEP
SBC: Texas St
AAC: UTSA, UNT, Rice

Of those, I'd say UTSA or UNT most likely. UNT is mediocre.

---

Two FCS names were mentioned but don't forget Sac St just humbled mighty Stanford and Montana State gave SDSUblue all it wanted.
They have numerous options for "15 and 16" should this become more than a thought experiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka

Two FCS names were mentioned but don't forget Sac St just humbled mighty Stanford and Montana State gave SDSUblue all it wanted.
They have numerous options for "15 and 16" should this become more than a thought experiment.

---

I have a hard time coming up with more compelling options than those I listed:
AAC: Tulane, Memphis, UTSA. (If they find the new arrangement and money side compelling enough to pay AAC exit fees)
FCS: Sac St, Montana, MSU. (If they are willing and able to move up)

That just may be THE list of most realistic options other than NDSU/SDSU.
Anything else is starting to dig deep into mediocrity.

What does a P5 pay a G5 for an OOC game? Those PAC/MW crossover games could be a good opportunity to help stabilize the money piece. The PAC teams host, the MW teams get some cash equivalent for going into a P5 stadium.

When it’s time for the MW to expand, it’ll be NDSU and SDSU.

Sac State’s athletic department is abysmal from top to bottom, excepting the football program for exactly one season and three games.

Their basketball stadium holds 1k, football stadium is a high school stadium. Have never made the NCAA tourney and last year they had their first ever FCS playoff victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigHorns

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.

---

Sac St beating Cal doesn’t help NDSU, I guess…

Don’t discount UC Davis, probably the best academic school in the MWC. Their fan base excitement just isn’t there in the Big Sky but elevating them to the MWC or PAC instantly makes their teams more exiting and relevant to the eyeballs in the area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.Schlossman Fan Club

Don’t discount UC Davis, probably the best academic school in the MWC. Their fan base excitement just isn’t there in the Big Sky but elevating them to the MWC or PAC instantly makes their teams more exiting and relevant to the eyeballs in the area.

---

Mentioned UCD, but I see them as a darkhorse, not a leading contender.

If they went that way, it would indicate a focus on geography, market, potential, and academics. It would also likely mean some other more desirable teams said no, or couldn't afford exit fees. Not a team that moves the needle competitively in the near term. Long term potential could be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigHorns

Mentioned UCD, but I see them as a darkhorse, not a leading contender.

If they went that way, it would indicate a focus on geography, market, potential, and academics. It would also likely mean some other more desirable teams said no, or couldn't afford exit fees. Not a team that moves the needle competitively in the near term. Long term potential could be there.

---

Agree with this… the whole idea appears to be some kind of play on being more competitive on the field. Not academic acumen…