AHC: Relegation in American College Football
- Thread starter mrmandias
- Start date
I'd love to comment, but what the hell does "relegation" mean in this context?
There's no way the big-dollar athletic programs like Ohio State or Texas would allow that to happen. The same is true of conferences like the SEC and Big Ten.
What I see happening is a slow-motion relegation: eventually, there will be four 16-team "super-conferences" that will stage an NFL-style playoff for the national championship.
Last season there were 125 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision. This means that entire conferences (e.g., Mid-American) won't make the cut, and some schools in existing conferences (e.g., Washington State) will conclude that it's impossible to compete for a championship.
The bowl games face an uncertain future, to put it mildly.
What I see happening is a slow-motion relegation: eventually, there will be four 16-team "super-conferences" that will stage an NFL-style playoff for the national championship.
Last season there were 125 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision. This means that entire conferences (e.g., Mid-American) won't make the cut, and some schools in existing conferences (e.g., Washington State) will conclude that it's impossible to compete for a championship.
The bowl games face an uncertain future, to put it mildly.
Moving up and down from power conferences to other conferences, or switching divisions, based on performance.
Relegation would be a cash cow. Would OSU or Texas seriously think that they would ever be relegated? It would be the Purdues and Iowa States that they would think should worry.
There is a lot of inertia and institutional details in the way, but I don't see any fundamental reason it couldn't have happened with the right POD.
Point taken re OSU, Texas, et al. Michigan had a epically putrid season last year, but tied for the fourth-worst record in the conference and thus wouldn't face relegation.
As for the POD, the problem is that in the U.S., baseball adopted a "closed" model with a fixed number of franchises, and the rest of American sport followed suit. This is in contrast with European football's "open model" under which anyone can form a team, and a team can move up the ladder via promotion as other teams are relegated.
The Miracle of Castel di Sangro, by Joe McGinniss, contains a very good description of Italy's league structure. McGinniss went to an Italian town of around 3,000 people whose team advanced from the bottom of organized football to Serie B, the second-highest division.
Yes, which is a pity, because relegation is fantastic for the reasons you pointed out.
I asked about college football specifically because its a little more open then pro sports. As we've seen for awhile, its format is much more in flux compared to other US sports. If relegation could happen in any mainstream sport in the US, I think it would be in college football.
Although if you go back far enough, baseball is the best bet to adopt the European model. It would be a lot of fun to have AAA teams moving up the big leagues and vice versa.
I asked about college football specifically because its a little more open then pro sports. As we've seen for awhile, its format is much more in flux compared to other US sports. If relegation could happen in any mainstream sport in the US, I think it would be in college football.
Although if you go back far enough, baseball is the best bet to adopt the European model. It would be a lot of fun to have AAA teams moving up the big leagues and vice versa.
I suppose maybe we could get some sort of relegation-promotion with the mid-majors and the power five conferences, with the bottom two of the mid majors being raised to a corresponding power five conference, and then maybe the bottom two mid-majors get relegated to FCS and the winners of the ten current automatic qualifying conferences get bumped up. But there would be some complications.
First of al, independents like Notre Dame and Army would need to be grouped into a conferences, which they won't like. Also, the FCS and the FBS operate with different recruiting rules, so those would have to be solved.
Probably the most complicated of relegation is that it could separate major rivalries, something that college football cherishes. Some people have said that top teams wouldn't let themselves be relegated, but just in the past 10 years we would have seen traditional powerhouses like Michigan, Michigan St, Stanford, Cal, Auburn, Ole Miss, and Boston College be sent down, which would be terrible for the sport. It would also disrupt the geographic makeup of the conferences, which would also hurt the game
First of al, independents like Notre Dame and Army would need to be grouped into a conferences, which they won't like. Also, the FCS and the FBS operate with different recruiting rules, so those would have to be solved.
Probably the most complicated of relegation is that it could separate major rivalries, something that college football cherishes. Some people have said that top teams wouldn't let themselves be relegated, but just in the past 10 years we would have seen traditional powerhouses like Michigan, Michigan St, Stanford, Cal, Auburn, Ole Miss, and Boston College be sent down, which would be terrible for the sport. It would also disrupt the geographic makeup of the conferences, which would also hurt the game
Like this idea.
- The teams in the Power 5 conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC) have a corresponding Group of 5 Conference (ACC to American, Big Ten to MAC, Pac-12 to Mountain West, SEC to Sun Belt, and Big 12 to Conference USA).
- The worst team in each of the Power 5 conferences moves down to their respective Group of 5 conference, and the best team in each Group of 5 conference moves up to the corresponding Power 5 Conference.
- Meanwhile, the worst team in each Group of 5 Conference is moved down to an FCS conference (Mountain West to Big Sky, American to Colonial Athletic or Big South, MAC to Missouri Valley, Sun Belt to Southland, and Conference USA to Southern Conference)
So theoretically, a team like North Dakota State (which has won 4 straight National Championships at the FCS level) could move up to the MAC conference for a year, and then up to the Big Ten the year after that if they played well enough. Not saying they'd dominate but at least be good enough to move up the levels.
Oh. One observation I would have is that the weak teams in power 5 conferences tend to be quite a bit better than the majority of the Lower tier conferences. I think the system would end up being pretty static. The Iowa States and Vanderbiltsvwould drop down to the lower leagues and rise to the top while the teams from lower leagues - maybe Tulsa or Middle Tennessee would fail at the higher tier...so every year or so they'd just flip flop. The Ohio States and Alabamas would never drop.
Also the colleges don't just play football. Would this penalize the Kansases and Dukes who excel at basketball because their football programs are typically not competitive at a high level?
But the biggest problem is tradition. These institutions are universities, not athletic franchises. They have traditional rivals in athletics, have relationships with other universities based on research or academics, and membership in athletic conferences often means more than just who plays whom in sports.
Finally, it's a foreign concept in US sports period. None of the professional leagues in any US sport do this, nor do the high schools that feed into colleges. You've got to figure out how to change that in pro and scholastic sports before you tackle big time college sports
That is happening to some extent as the result of conference realignment. When Missouri moved from the Big 12 to the SEC, its long-standing rivalry (120 games) with Kansas came to an end. Notre Dame and Michigan have ended their series last year, in part because of Big Ten expansion and Notre Dame's semi-membership in the ACC.
At least Texas and Oklahoma are still playing each other.
That is a good idea. The only addition would be that instead of automatically moving up or down, the bottom team plays the top team below it. Winner gets to be in the upper tier group, the loser goes to the lower tier group.
The problem with relegation in college athletics is that most conferences are multi sport. A school my have a bad football team, but a comptitive men's basketball team, a champion women's basketball team, not to mention sports like gymnastics, Track and Field, swimming, etc.
Not every sport is bad at the same time.
Not every sport is bad at the same time.
jahenders
Banned
I just wish they would build something like the Pro-Football system -- equal-sized conferences all having a shot at the playoffs. It would be great if there was also some semblance of balance -- as it is now, you regularly have college games where the odds spread is 20-30 points -- it is simply not true that "any team can win on any given day" when (relatively speaking) one is playing at a near-pro level and one is a glorified high school program. A HUGE step in the balance direction would be to have schedules automatically generated based on last season's performance (like the pros). So, you wouldn't have powerhouse schools plot their schedule so that they have guaranteed blow-out games just before key votes, etc. Instead, if you did well last year and went to the playoffs, you're GOING to have a tough schedule, NOT one of your choosing.
Of course, the big conferences and big money schools (Notre Dame, OSU, etc) will block anything that doesn't ensure that they usually win, have an inside track to money bowls, and can pick their opponents to pad their stats.
Of course, the big conferences and big money schools (Notre Dame, OSU, etc) will block anything that doesn't ensure that they usually win, have an inside track to money bowls, and can pick their opponents to pad their stats.
Yeah, it would definitely have to be done on a sport by sport basis. Probably just college football, maybe also college basketball. But your football and basketball teams wouldn't move in tandem.
So to keep long term ties, the most stable configuration would be something like the one mentioned above, where you have a Power 5 conference in a long term association with an geographically overlapping G5 conference.
First off I think this is a fantastic idea. Would this be in addition to the Play-off system implemented last year? On the rivalry issue, IMO I don't think they would be affected. Many rivalries(in particular my team the SC Gamecocks and Clemson our rivals) are not in the same conference. There could still be a Rivalry Week of sorts and many of these games could by played out of conference. Instead of the lets play some low level FCS team we typically see.
It gets more complex than that....for example, MIT is a Division III football team, but has Division I rowers...another example is Johns Hopkins which plays Lacrosse in Division I
in a way relegation has happened and is still happening with conference realignment:
Tulane and Georgia Tech both left the Southeastern Conference in 1964...
Look at the split up of the Big East, where the basketball schools went off on their own...
I personally think that the Big 12 is going to eventually split up...
in a way relegation has happened and is still happening with conference realignment:
Tulane and Georgia Tech both left the Southeastern Conference in 1964...
Look at the split up of the Big East, where the basketball schools went off on their own...
I personally think that the Big 12 is going to eventually split up...
OK,
let's assume that there are some tweaks to US anti-trust law, combined with a forceful and farsighted TV exec and/or College President/NCAA exec, who is able to push through a wrinkle in the new play-off system requiring or at least encouraging relegation. Maybe there is a proviso stating that any P5 conference that has a relegation agreement with a G5 conference has preference in making the playoffs to any conference that doesn't have a deal. One conference rushes through the deal for 2014 (let's say its, dunno, the ACC and the AAC), and gets offered $15 million for the rights to the relegation game. Suddenly everyone takes notice, especially when the Big 12 gets completely shut out of the play-offs. Multiple commentators point out that if Big 12 had a relegation deal, it would have been in.
In the inaugural relegation game, Memphis defeats the Demon Deacons of Wake Forest. Ratings are phenomenal.
Suddenly the Big 12 and the Pac 12 spend the 2015 off-season in a low-level bidding war to sign the MWC. In a surprise move, the result is a four-way alliance. The Big 12 and the Pac 12 jointly partner with the MWC and the Middle-American Conference. A committee will pick the top two schools from one or both of the two G5 conferences for the year-ending relegation game. There is a revenue-smoothing provision for teams going up and going down, and some scheduling tweaks between the two G5 conferences. It is announced that BYU will be rejoining the MWC. The TV deals are also announced. The rights are $19 million a piece, which surprises some, though it is revealed that the G5 conference TV rights were kept the same, even though they were now more valuable, in return for a bigger relegation game payout. The necessary adjustments to NCAA rules are made to accommodate this new conference grouping. The MWC announces that it intends to have a CCG to end the season which it claims it is entitled to do under the rules, but there is resistance from the NCAA, since it could result in a 14-game season. The issue is unresolved by the start of the season though the MWC has tentatively scheduled the game.
In the off-season, there is unusual national interest in both Memphis and Wake Forest. That interest continues into the season. Both teams set attendance records.
let's assume that there are some tweaks to US anti-trust law, combined with a forceful and farsighted TV exec and/or College President/NCAA exec, who is able to push through a wrinkle in the new play-off system requiring or at least encouraging relegation. Maybe there is a proviso stating that any P5 conference that has a relegation agreement with a G5 conference has preference in making the playoffs to any conference that doesn't have a deal. One conference rushes through the deal for 2014 (let's say its, dunno, the ACC and the AAC), and gets offered $15 million for the rights to the relegation game. Suddenly everyone takes notice, especially when the Big 12 gets completely shut out of the play-offs. Multiple commentators point out that if Big 12 had a relegation deal, it would have been in.
In the inaugural relegation game, Memphis defeats the Demon Deacons of Wake Forest. Ratings are phenomenal.
Suddenly the Big 12 and the Pac 12 spend the 2015 off-season in a low-level bidding war to sign the MWC. In a surprise move, the result is a four-way alliance. The Big 12 and the Pac 12 jointly partner with the MWC and the Middle-American Conference. A committee will pick the top two schools from one or both of the two G5 conferences for the year-ending relegation game. There is a revenue-smoothing provision for teams going up and going down, and some scheduling tweaks between the two G5 conferences. It is announced that BYU will be rejoining the MWC. The TV deals are also announced. The rights are $19 million a piece, which surprises some, though it is revealed that the G5 conference TV rights were kept the same, even though they were now more valuable, in return for a bigger relegation game payout. The necessary adjustments to NCAA rules are made to accommodate this new conference grouping. The MWC announces that it intends to have a CCG to end the season which it claims it is entitled to do under the rules, but there is resistance from the NCAA, since it could result in a 14-game season. The issue is unresolved by the start of the season though the MWC has tentatively scheduled the game.
In the off-season, there is unusual national interest in both Memphis and Wake Forest. That interest continues into the season. Both teams set attendance records.