So why does the PAC/MW conference get two auto bids for all sports, but every other conference with two divisions only gets one?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
Printable View
So why does the PAC/MW conference get two auto bids for all sports, but every other conference with two divisions only gets one?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
In the relegation model it's not one conference with divisions it's two conferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
That's exactly the "magic" with this. It's technically two conferences, even though they periodically shuffle teams between the two conferences. A conference only needs 8 members according to NCAA and FBS rules. All the other schools ran off. Effectively owning two conferences would be a coup for this group of schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
Yes, I’m sure the B10, SEC and B12 will all see it that way lolQuote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
Yes, we’ll call it “magic”Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
The rest of the NCAA will call it “double dipping”
Not a whole lot NCAA could do about it easily. It's technically two FBS conferences, and would comply with all rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
They'd either have to say Promotion/Relegation concept is not permitted (unlikely), or revisit the entire membership structure of conferences in general and autobids.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
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.
Let me get this straight, the two entities share teams, a media deal, NCAA payout money, and operate in every other conceivable way as a single conference (besides having a different suite #’s), and have a legally binding contract that conferences can never separate - and the NCAA isn’t going to push back?
All the NCAA would have to do is revoke the MW’s charter
$$$$$Quote:
Originally Posted by B.Schlossman Fan Club
You don't see this model as generating more $$ 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
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.
At least two or three ways:Quote:
Originally Posted by B.Schlossman Fan Club
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.
That was easy wasn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
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.
1) NCAA gonna choke on that one going downQuote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
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?
The negative underlying trapdoor is the NCAA. Always has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
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.
It gives them both in a way.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
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.
Looking at Boise, UNLV, SDSU schedules this year? Apparently not very hard lolQuote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
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?
Believe the Boise proposal said the crossover games would replace one or two OOC games.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
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.
Oh absolutely believe it's a moonshot to say the least. Even in the unlikely event it happens there is no guarantee NDSU is involved either.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
All I'm saying is there are a lot of positives to why football programs would want to be part of this.
I also think other than winning the lottery and getting into the top G5 conference(whatever that is at this point) this would be a dream scenario for NDSU because all sports eyeballs would be focused on it and the talk of every sports personality would include this new model and programs. And of course I believe NDSU would sky rocket to the top of the top tier and that would be a national story beause of the recognition the program has already built for itself.
So even though I believe the chance is less than 1%, I'm all in on talking about the fun positives this could bring to a total stale level of college football.
You still need 8 conference games. An ooc game would not count as a conference game. The idea is to create 2 separate conferences. For it to work each conference would need 9 football members.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
Remember you are deciding who gets to move up or who has to move down. It has to be on as level a playing field as you can get.
I don't know where anyone is voting themselves into a lesser conference for less money? Tell me which of the two conferences has some great media deal right now? MWC = what $4m each and PAC = $0 right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
On the relgation games not being valuable to non MWC viewers I respectfully disagree and think it would be primetime ESPN content.
Lol it’s not only Chapo either…Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
PAC still has Autonomy status with NCAA. They also have P5 status in the CFP system today, and because of CFP membership voting rules, not sure that will easily be revoked. They are grouped with the P5 schools, and get a larger payout than the G5 do from CFP.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
The easiest way to do this would be to do it for ALL sports. Making Football separate would require an NCAA/FBS waiver, as football-only FBS conferences aren't allowed today. Plus a lot of the benefits here are the additional auto-bids.
The reason, I don't see this generating enough MW votes to make it happen is because this is really just a scheme to eliminate exit fees. Once you create 2 separate conferences the charade ends.
That's why I ask who gets to pick who goes where to start the process. What will be the criteria for the placement?
But from what others are saying the NCAA can and will just come in and change anything they don't like. So who's to say that the PAC adding MWC wouldn't cause the NCAA to say, yeah sorry you're now at the kid's table where you belong?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
Interesting scheduling point, it might be this would work better as two 9 member conferences, 18 teams total.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
That would mean PAC/MWC need to add 4 teams. Even better.
The Boise proposal was that the cross-conference games would officially be "OOC" contests. Not sure they could get away with replacing the 8 in-conference games.
That's what some seem to think LOL. But people forget that the "NCAA" = all division 1 schools, including the G5. Majority of schools would need to vote for/approve any changes, not just the SEC/B1G or the P4.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
The idea of the premier league is they get a bigger slice of the tv deal. That probably means 60 percent to 40 percent. It may even be 70/30. As for ESPN, the current providers are CBS/Fox. That contract is in place through 2026. The Pac 2 has no tv deal so for 3 more years under a relegation system, the premiere league would taking their extra chunk at the expense of the minor league slices. It is possible that CBS/Fox could bump up the deal in exchange for more years under contract. While possible it would not exactly be a gold mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
As if they give a shit about automatic bids. Just add two more at large to the basketball tournament and they’ll be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
What if this pro/rel talk is a sign of a much bigger problem(for OSU/WSU at least). After this year PAC has no media contract and MWC has 2 years left at ~$4M from CBS and FOX. Both those companies just shelled out a ton of money for the PAC schools that joined other P5s. MWC doesn't have pro-rata, what if CBS/FOX don't want to pay anything for OSU/WSU? They're under no obligation to do so. They're probably fine with them joining the MWC and don't care how the money is split up, just won't increase the pot.
OSU/WSU can't bear the embarrassment of joining a G5 for $0 and no MWC member is going to take a pay cut to add them. This pro/rel idea is a way to hide the pay cut.
The real question is what happens to the Wazzu flag at gameday after this season!
Even if Osu and WSU were to be invited to the B12 they are probably still going to get far less money because they are not particularly valuable properties. They would take a reduced slice for sure. SMU certainly did. But, they are unlikely to get a P5 spot. That means they will be taking a massive cut on their tv share. For most if not all the MW the current tv deal is less than 10 percent of their total revenue in a given year.Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
The one thing both the twins have going for them. If and when they joined the MW they would have far more cash on hand to work with than any MW school. The distribution for the MW is around 6 million bucks per fiscal year. This last year of the Pac 12 will likely net the twins about 40 million bucks each just from the distribution alone. If they convince schools to pay large exit fees to join them, they will still have more money even if the new tv deal pays a bit more than they could get in the MW.
If they join the MW they do so under the current deal. If they merge they do so under the current deal. If they form some sort of relegation conference they do so under the same CBS/Fox deal.
That is why they are also exploring remaining a 2 school conference for the 2 year grace period or becoming independent for football and house their OLY sports elsewhere..Probably the Big West.
They are in a serious pickle. They really don't have much leverage at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
From a media deal perspective, it certainly does seem WSU/OSU don't have much leverage.
The other P4 conferences already said "no thanks", including the B12.
AAC in theory said "no thanks" as well, though not sure if that was mutual or an AAC call.
The leverage PAC-2 has left is whatever the PAC conference assets are worth, plus the potential ability to poach other schools to join them. Other than that, they will have to negotiate with MWC for whatever they can get.
For the first year, probably the previous years head-to-head records and common opponents and the AP/Coaches CFB rankings. Probably some Sagarin-ish type rating system as well as tie-breakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
So your saying NDSU will be in the top conference, go it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tjamz
Fuck that. Make us earn it. Make us prove what we’ve been saying all along.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
Oh I would fully expect any FCS team invited would have to start at the lowest level. But that’s ok, it would only last one season.Quote:
Originally Posted by heffray
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not gonna lie... if (and hopefully when) the Bison move up I'm going to miss that feeling on consecutive weekends in December when you know the season is over if the boys lose but it only gets bigger and better if they win. I really couldn't think of a scenario in FBS-land short of that once-in-a-decade (at most) opportunity that a G5 team has a chance to make the CFP if they win their conference title that this could be replicated. This model makes it so practically every school who is invested in football year-in-year-out is playing these types of games late in the regular season every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R