It’s what I love about the relegation model. It brings so much more meaning to the games at the G6 level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Chaos
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
It’s what I love about the relegation model. It brings so much more meaning to the games at the G6 level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Chaos
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those two items are why the schools likely to be starting in the bottom half (e.g. UWyo, USU, UNM) will never vote for it. If we see through the charade so do they.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Like most things, it comes down to money.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
If all schools can receive a bump in pay, to say $5m or $6m, plus the guaranteed opportunity to advance to the PAC for a bit more ($8m-$10m), I think it becomes a no brainer to say yes. Unless of course you are so pessimistic on your own program that you think reaching the top half is impossible.
If the MWC bottom half think they are going to hold the top half "hostage" to MWC long term, thats a failed plan. This would be smarter.
For now they can hold them hostage, there’s no where else for them to go. Besides make their own conference, which is what I think they’ll do anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
They can either make their own conference or do this goofy relegation thing until the buyout fees die down and then split off anyways. I don’t see a situation in which this is mutually beneficial. The pros have to outweigh the cons for BOTH sides.
The way it’s been described here at least is that the top schools in the MW will A) take less money per year B) reduce their OOC scheduling flexibility C) expose themselves to possible relegation (which would likely have as much or larger of a financial strain than just paying the exit fee in the first place).
It can happen now or happen later but someday in the near term the conferences will be split.
how BAD is the PUDcs ??
look at this top 25 this week. und 11? NC Central 13? Florida A M 18 ? holy shit they are sooo bad.
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.
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.
Pro/rel with the Big 10 or SEC? Yeah, that'll be big and bring in the dollars. A G5? Splash of novelty but I don't see the media paying significantly more over time. You still have the same number of broadcast time slots and it's not like they're going to get an extra million streaming subscribers.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
That merged CUSA+SBC relegation game between UNC-Charlotte and Arkansas State will draw tens of viewers.
It could double the value of a normal MW game but that still doesn't make it valuable in the big picture. The only people who are interested in the MW reside west of the Rockies have been long time fans of the members. Adding OSU/WSU is not going to change that even if it is under relegation system under the Pac name.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
To be fair, if you and your SDSU are added, it would increase interest in the Dakotas and that is not small thing. But the rest of the country tends to yawn when it comes to the MW.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
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.
Who's trying to create a relegation alignment between those conferences?? No oneQuote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
Every account of the relegation model I have seen is very clearly two separate conferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
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.
Here's the thing ... being a P5 has never really been about how good the teams are, any more than FBS vs FCS is.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBison
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.
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.
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.
For awhile, you could count on Wyoming being in that slot...I really miss that...Quote:
Originally Posted by ringthebells
If it's a wonderful idea wouldn't everyone start doing it?Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
Not with those two. It would mostly make sense to pair a "P5" with a "G5"Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
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.
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
And the remnants of a P5, who are not P5 without the PAC history, who have been riding coat tails, are trying to pretend to be P5 and trying to rebuild a P5 with G5 components. It's completely transparent. Their end game isn't "promo/releg" but "Denver Airport Meeting 2.0"' where there's a split and some are overboarded. And we know who's at risk of that.
USU, UNM, UWyo, should be voting "hard no" on anything but a pure "add" of the two 2PAC teams to the MWC.
Anything else they risk losing exit fees they should be owed, but even then still risk "Denver Airport Meeting 2.0".
Alright... just for fun, I thought I'd ask ChatGPT 4.0 what it's thoughts are on how to do this and make it equitable for everyone while incentivizing top performers in the conferences. Here is what it came up with:
Quote:
### **Updated Collegiate Football Relegation Conference (CFRC) Proposal**
**Introduction:**
The CFRC aims to infuse new energy into collegiate football, introducing a relegation and promotion system that combines competitive integrity, fan engagement, and financial equity. This updated proposal outlines a revised mechanism for team movements between tiers.
**Member Schools:**
1. Oregon State
2. Washington State
3. Montana State
4. Montana
5. North Dakota State
6. South Dakota State
7. Hawaii
8. Boise State
9. San Jose State
10. Colorado State
11. Wyoming
12. New Mexico
13. Air Force
14. Nevada
15. Utah State
16. Fresno State
17. UNLV
18. San Diego State
**Conference Structure:**
1. **Tier 1 - Collegiate Premier Division (CPD):**
- Includes top-ranked teams: Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, San Jose State, Air Force, San Diego State, Nevada, Fresno State, and Utah State.
- The last-place team is automatically relegated, and the second-last place team enters a play-in match.
2. **Tier 2 - Collegiate Championship Division (CCD):**
- Consists of the remaining teams: Montana State, Montana, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Hawaii, Colorado State, Wyoming, New Mexico, and UNLV.
- The second-place team competes in the play-in match against the second-last team of Tier 1.
**Revised Relegation and Promotion Mechanism:**
- **Automatic Relegation:** The last-place team in CPD (e.g., Utah State) is automatically relegated to CCD.
- **Play-In Match:** The second-last team in CPD (e.g., Fresno State) faces the second-place team in CCD (e.g., Montana State) to determine who plays in Tier 1 the following season.
**Financial Structure:**
1. **Equal Revenue Sharing:**
- All 18 teams share the conference’s total revenue equally, ensuring financial stability.
- Promotes competitive balance across both tiers.
2. **Performance Bonuses:**
- Teams securing a spot in bowl games or the College Football Playoff receive financial bonuses, incentivizing top performance.
**Benefits of the Revised Model:**
- **Enhanced Drama:** The updated relegation and promotion mechanism adds intrigue to the end-of-season matches.
- **Fair Competition:** The play-in match offers a fair chance for teams to prove their worth for a spot in the top tier.
- **Fan Engagement:** The revised structure promises heightened excitement, especially towards the season’s end.
**Conclusion:**
The updated CFRC model promises an exhilarating future for collegiate football. Every team, from powerhouse Boise State to emerging contenders like Montana State, is offered a platform to compete, evolve, and excel, ensuring every match is a spectacle, and every season is unforgettable.
If they don't have the votes to oust those teams now, how would they suddenly get the votes to oust those teams at a later date when part of the ideas I've seen offered up have them adding teams to the bottom tier which would give those (3) teams you reference additional teams who would likely vote with them. Again, I'm not saying that this will happen. I just see benefits to all parties here that make this type of idea at least a possibility on its face. The top tier gives up some revenue for stability and the existing MWC teams that would be in the bottom tier initially give up some "prestige" for the possibility of increased revenue and a chance to move up based on performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
In theory this makes sense with the big issue being media rights and the money it generates. This would have to be football only, as NDSU and Hawaii would now be in the same conference! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tjamz
I would argue that the Boise proposal would give you at least four games a year that would get viewing numbers way beyond any bowl game between comparable-level teams. The proposal is that the upper and middle 6/7 teams would have a game where the loser is relegated, and the middle and lower 2/3 teams would have a game where the winner is promoted. Those games would be far more entertaining to the general audience than two mid-level generic teams in a no-name bowl game. Clearly not as entertaining as a major bowl game or a CFP game, but still way better than a typical mid/low-level bowl game.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
I don't know if that's enough to move the needle much for the decision makers at the MWC schools, but it's at least worth consideration.
Its crazy that after all the realignment drama that went on the past year and continues to unfold, we now find ourselves pinning our hopes of FBS on relegation (which of course will never happen). We missed an obvious opportunity in CUSA. We don't have the balls to go independent. The Bison are FCS forever (like many of the fans).
what's this
- The College Football Playoff management committee shelved any talk of format changes to the expanded 12-team field that will begin next season
sooooooo depressingQuote:
Originally Posted by Professorbum
If the original relegation plan presented by the Boise Deputy AD were to go into effect, it would mean 3 conferences of 8 schools each. It would be 24 school divided into three separate levels. You would have 8 in the Pac, tier 2 would have 8 in the MW and tier 3 would be 8 in ...CUSA. That would be the conference you would likely start out in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professorbum
Define Irony..
http://https://www.espn.com/college-...ball-look-like
Bill C goes out of his way to point out that SDSU and NDSU are top mid majors and repeatedly mentions both schools as top potential programs for a PAC/MWC relegation league
There is zero chance of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
1) No current MWC or PAC school is going to support the idea they could be demoted to cusa level and earn even less.
2) No Northwest team is going to want to travel to the far Southeast to play conference games.
3) You are misrepresenting what was in the original proposal. If it went to 24 teams, they would invite REGIONAL teams from the Central, Mountain and Pacific timezones. That could include inviting some "regional teams from the AAC, Conference USA or WAC" according to the proposal. They were talking about a couple schools like UTEP and NMSU along with Tulane, UNT, UTSA from AAC potentially, not FIU and KSU, or the entire conference.
As I said before..Nobody is voting their own school to make less money. There is no chance AAC schools would pay an exit fee and maybe find themselves in a lower paying tier. To get to 24 schools it would by definition "not" be regional. NDSU and SDSU are not even close to regional with Pacific time zone schools. Whatever the mix for the 3rd tier was going to be it would be far flung. They could have called the lowest tier conference anything..I just picked CUSA because there would likely be a number of CUSA schools willing to sign on to what would be a horrible situation for a tiny chance to move up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
Interesting idea but no chance of happening. It was not an idea cooked up by the Pac 2. Just Boise being Boise.
At this point I am not even sure OSU/WSU will be involved with the MW at all. I believe they want to buy their way into the Big 12 because there is no upside to G5 status.
Still lots of balls in the air.
Fargo is as far from Pullman as San Diego or Colorado Springs is from Pullman. It's closer than UNM NMSU or UTEP. In any case it's a charter jet ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Exactly, you pulled that out of your ass, and passed it off as though it was part of the Boise proposal. It wasn't. Tons of other schools would be first in line.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Big 12 is a hard no on OSU/WSU, so they only have 3 options:
1) Work with MWC in some type of merger process.
2) Poach from MWC and others to rebuild PAC.
3) Go indy.
They would prefer to poach, if they can. Indy would be a last resort. They aren't remotely going to consider other G5 conferences, AAC is out, and there is zero chance they consider MAC or CUSA.
I also believe OSU/WSU would prefer Promotion/Relegation over a full merger. It allows them to be part of the "upper tier" of MWC schools. If that doesn't happen, its only a matter of time until the upper tier of MWC breaks away on their own. Boise and SDSU already have one foot out.
I leave you alone for one evening—ONE. EVENING. —and you guys fill the entire MWC’s Bisonville account with red chiclets… how are we supposed to go FBS now?!
Just barely...the Bisonville demographic is pretty old.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
I think Trump should be the MWC commissioner.
"I would build a great conference, and nobody builds conferences better than me. I will build a great great conference on our western border and I'll have the PAC-2 pay for that conference."
You are banging on about something that won't happen. The Boise plan is DOA. The Pac 2 poaching teams is a nice dream but neither OSU or Wazzu is a draw. And the exit fees are steep.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
The Pac2 is going to sue to get all the remaining assets. I don't know if they will win or not but if they do; They get the entire Pac 12 Network. They get all the basketball credits. They get the Pac 12 stake in the Rose Bowl. Those are sellable assets and they would hope to use that to get into the Big 12. They could live off the funds and offer to play for no tv money in the Big 12 ala the SMU plan. Will it work? Who knows. The Pac 2 will not feel good about any of this even if they get to be in the top tier of a mid major conference.
It takes 9 votes to dissolve the MW. If schools want to breakaway to form what would still be a G5 playing under a small tv deal, they can. If the conference is dissolved, groovy. If not the exit fee is 17 million per school with 2 years notice. It is 34 million with 1 year's notice. SDSU and Boise don't want to form a new conference. Like all G5's they would like an invitation to a Power conference. Those slots are dwindling. A best of the rest is still G5 and not particularly valuable.
As I said before, with or without the Pac 2, the MW is heading towards a performance based tv deal. Have a good year, you get a bigger slice. Fall off, you get a smaller cut. There's a quasi relegation plan right there.
As for NDSU. If the MW/Pac/whatever wants you they will invite you. But, Fargo is not regional to the schools out west at all. You are fairly close to some MW mountain schools. If, as you say, the idea is to be regional that hurts your chances. The original idea was for 3 separate conferences and 3 tiers. By it's very existence it does away with 'regional' because it would be far flung. Say Hawaii was in tier two and got relegated to tier 3. Does that make any sense on any level? You could have the primo tier 3 matchup in the south east somewhere against some school from that area. No one is watching that game. Unworkable..
Pretty sure USU, UWyo, and UNM are hard no. Where would they ever get a better gig?Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
The rest are "options" based; however, most won't have better options.
SDSU might have great options in coming years.
But where else would Nevada go.
I would guess they would form a western flank of CUSA, though probably just for football.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
It took at least 9 votes to set the very expensive exit fees. I have heard it was unanimous though I am unconvinced it was. Still, it passed.
The AAC also passed significant exit fees.
If there is some merger with the Pac 2 it will likely involve all the MW schools. If the newly merged unit is under the Pac 14 banner, then the MW would have to be dissolved so that their assets would move too. That would end the MW exit fees too. If the northwest twins join the MW outright the Pac2 dissolves.
That brings us to a couple of sticking points. Do the MW schools take on some of the Pac12 debt? Do the Pac2 schools get a share of MW assets and vice versa. Because the PAC 2 would like to be flexible in case they get an invitation to a better conference along with SDSU, CSU etc..they would probably prefer much smaller exit fees. The schools who aren't shooting for the moon would want larger ones.
The Pac 2 is in a pickle.