|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Sept 20, 2023 10:06:31 GMT -8
Sounds of desperation. Two months ago people would laugh at any of these teams joining our league. If the mwc is our destination and forget the merger into the pac it still is a league with mwc teams then say goodbye to most coaches and manyplayers. The budget is going to take a big whack. The way I understand this model, the Pac and MWC would not merge. They would remain autonomous and form partnership. The gist of it is, and this applies to football only, The top PAC teams and top MWC teams would play each other. the bottom teams would play in the WAC MWC. At seasons end the top two MWC teams get promoted to PAC for next season while the bottom two PAC teams get demoted to WAC MWC. This would be ongoing. Year one might look like this- PAC Schedule: OSU, WSU, Boise, Wyoming, Fresno St., SDSU, Air Force, Utah State . WAC Schedule; UNR, UNLV, New Mexico, Hawaii, CO St., S. Dakota, N. Dakota Would allow us control of PAC, Post season bowl and basketball revenue share, a seat and vote at P5 table, and give us a tremendous amount of leverage with the networks who don't want the PAC to survive as a competing entity. The pie in the sky forward looking advantage is, teams like UU, ASU, and UA may rethink their decision and now you really have something brewing....... |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Sept 20, 2023 10:13:27 GMT -8
Promotion and Relegation is a cool concept, but would only work if the entire FBS division took it up. Maybe those 200+ schools get divided into a few tiers and there is movement between those tiers and then FCS schools can move in and out of FBS as well. I don't think it would work within a 16 team dual conference.
For comparison the EFL (English football league) has 8 tiers and over 120 total teams. Only 4 of those tiers are considered "professional" and so the players are paid.
To combat the unequal revenue between tiers (which was brought up in the article, how does a NDSU get promoted / compete with BSU when they will always be at a financial disadvantage, on a consistent basis) the EFL has a host of mini tournaments that pay out a good chunk of change, the lower tiers teams fight like crazy for those, many times those are a bigger deal than even the main league championship, while the top tier teams often only play subs (since they don't need the cash and want to rest their top players for the real league championship). Of course this is only possible because a soccer team can play dozens of games a season (many EFL teams play 50+ games a year). They also play exhibitions (tune up games) against the premier league teams in which they get paid (think non conference body bag games for FCS and G5 conference teams)
And in the end, it is really only a handful of teams that stay in each tier forever with another handful that get relegated, then promoted then relegated then promoted.
It is quite rare for a team like Wrexham or AFC Wimbledon to climb through multiple leagues, and even then neither will ever make it into the top two tiers. Even to do what those two teams have done it has been many years and tough sledding and the backing of a couple celebrities (including cash)(Ryan Reynolds for Wrexham, John Green and Nerdfighteria for Wimbledon).
Bottom line, the Promotion / Relegation system is a neat concept, but not the "Any team can make it to the top if they have heart and will and try heard" panacea some may see it as.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Sept 20, 2023 10:47:55 GMT -8
Sounds of desperation. Two months ago people would laugh at any of these teams joining our league. If the mwc is our destination and forget the merger into the pac it still is a league with mwc teams then say goodbye to most coaches and manyplayers. The budget is going to take a big whack. It's not clear if you read the whole article. If you're saying that ANY solution that involves resurrecting the Pac-X by adding ANY MWC teams is disastrous and unsustainable, then you're right that this (and most other plans) will not work. But if your complaint about this is that it loses the Pac-X conference or dillutes it by adding 2 FCS teams, then you missed the point. The Pac-X (8) and the MWC stay as 2 conferences, with this unique promotion/relegation agreement. This, to me, feels like a way to allow the Pac to "poach" the best MWC teams in a way that bypasses the buyouts, keeps us and the MWC on good terms, and doesn't snack of what the Big-# conferences did to the Pac-12. The reasons it would not work would be if the other P5 conferences vote to remove the CFP bid for the Pac-X, the media deal is too small, or schools balk at the budget variability. I have no solution for the first two and for the last one, I can only say that budget variability is going to be an ongoing reality in college football anyway. And the fact that the promotion/relegation system may run into some serious roadblocks is hopefully irrelevant to us, since our plan is to stay in the premier League. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 20, 2023 11:08:52 GMT -8
Sounds of desperation. Two months ago people would laugh at any of these teams joining our league. If the mwc is our destination and forget the merger into the pac it still is a league with mwc teams then say goodbye to most coaches and manyplayers. The budget is going to take a big whack. It's not clear if you read the whole article. If you're saying that ANY solution that involves resurrecting the Pac-X by adding ANY MWC teams is disastrous and unsustainable, then you're right that this (and most other plans) will not work. But if your complaint about this is that it loses the Pac-X conference or dillutes it by adding 2 FCS teams, then you missed the point. The Pac-X (8) and the MWC stay as 2 conferences, with this unique promotion/relegation agreement. This, to me, feels like a way to allow the Pac to "poach" the best MWC teams in a way that bypasses the buyouts, keeps us and the MWC on good terms, and doesn't snack of what the Big-# conferences did to the Pac-12. The reasons it would not work would be if the other P5 conferences vote to remove the CFP bid for the Pac-X, the media deal is too small, or schools balk at the budget variability. I have no solution for the first two and for the last one, I can only say that budget variability is going to be an ongoing reality in college football anyway. And the fact that the promotion/relegation system may run into some serious roadblocks is hopefully irrelevant to us, since our plan is to stay in the premier League. I'm thinking the other P4 conferences can't vote the CFP bid away. Thought I read somewhere that it takes a unanimous vote of all 10 P5 ad G5 conferences to change the current status. If so, I can think of 2 conferences that would vote no if the relagation idea were in effect. Now I don't know if there's a time limit on the NCAA bylaws. I'm thinking if this were to take fruition and work, we might see the other four G5 conferences pairing up into two groups of two conferences each and doing a similar thing. To me it sounds of inspiration more than desperation. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 20, 2023 12:52:11 GMT -8
Sounds of desperation. Two months ago people would laugh at any of these teams joining our league. If the mwc is our destination and forget the merger into the pac it still is a league with mwc teams then say goodbye to most coaches and manyplayers. The budget is going to take a big whack. The way I understand this model, the Pac and MWC would not merge. They would remain autonomous and form partnership. The gist of it is, and this applies to football only, The top PAC teams and top MWC teams would play each other. the bottom teams would play in the WAC MWC. At seasons end the top two MWC teams get promoted to PAC for next season while the bottom two PAC teams get demoted to WAC MWC. This would be ongoing. Year one might look like this- PAC Schedule: OSU, WSU, Boise, Wyoming, Fresno St., SDSU, Air Force, Utah State . WAC Schedule; UNR, UNLV, New Mexico, Hawaii, CO St., S. Dakota, N. Dakota Would allow us control of PAC, Post season bowl and basketball revenue share, a seat and vote at P5 table, and give us a tremendous amount of leverage with the networks who don't want the PAC to survive as a competing entity. The pie in the sky forward looking advantage is, teams like UU, ASU, and UA may rethink their decision and now you really have something brewing....... This is a better idea than a straight-up merger. I am not sure that North Dakota State and the South Dakota State are the right teams. Fargo and Brookings? Hard pass! It would be great if it was a say Rice and UTSA. That I could 100% get behind. If we have to go FCS, how about Davis and Sac State? Those are probably better choices. A resurrected Cal State Fullerton or Long Beach State program would probably be even better in the long-run. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 20, 2023 12:55:56 GMT -8
It's not clear if you read the whole article. If you're saying that ANY solution that involves resurrecting the Pac-X by adding ANY MWC teams is disastrous and unsustainable, then you're right that this (and most other plans) will not work. But if your complaint about this is that it loses the Pac-X conference or dillutes it by adding 2 FCS teams, then you missed the point. The Pac-X (8) and the MWC stay as 2 conferences, with this unique promotion/relegation agreement. This, to me, feels like a way to allow the Pac to "poach" the best MWC teams in a way that bypasses the buyouts, keeps us and the MWC on good terms, and doesn't snack of what the Big-# conferences did to the Pac-12. The reasons it would not work would be if the other P5 conferences vote to remove the CFP bid for the Pac-X, the media deal is too small, or schools balk at the budget variability. I have no solution for the first two and for the last one, I can only say that budget variability is going to be an ongoing reality in college football anyway. And the fact that the promotion/relegation system may run into some serious roadblocks is hopefully irrelevant to us, since our plan is to stay in the premier League. I'm thinking the other P4 conferences can't vote the CFP bid away. Thought I read somewhere that it takes a unanimous vote of all 10 P5 ad G5 conferences to change the current status. If so, I can think of 2 conferences that would vote no if the relegation idea were in effect. Now I don't know if there's a time limit on the NCAA bylaws. I'm thinking if this were to take fruition and work, we might see the other four G5 conferences pairing up into two groups of two conferences each and doing a similar thing. To me it sounds of inspiration more than desperation. There is no Pac-X CFP bid next year. Currently, the top six conference champions get an auto-bid into the 12-team playoff. The debate is whether there continues to be six conference champion spots or whether the Power Four will contract that down to five spots. With California and Stanford, the Power Four has the ability to contract the auto-bids down to five spots with or without the Pac-X or the Mountain West. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Sept 20, 2023 13:23:01 GMT -8
The way I understand this model, the Pac and MWC would not merge. They would remain autonomous and form partnership. The gist of it is, and this applies to football only, The top PAC teams and top MWC teams would play each other. the bottom teams would play in the WAC MWC. At seasons end the top two MWC teams get promoted to PAC for next season while the bottom two PAC teams get demoted to WAC MWC. This would be ongoing. Year one might look like this- PAC Schedule: OSU, WSU, Boise, Wyoming, Fresno St., SDSU, Air Force, Utah State . WAC Schedule; UNR, UNLV, New Mexico, Hawaii, CO St., S. Dakota, N. Dakota Would allow us control of PAC, Post season bowl and basketball revenue share, a seat and vote at P5 table, and give us a tremendous amount of leverage with the networks who don't want the PAC to survive as a competing entity. The pie in the sky forward looking advantage is, teams like UU, ASU, and UA may rethink their decision and now you really have something brewing....... This is a better idea than a straight-up merger. I am not sure that North Dakota State and the South Dakota State are the right teams. Fargo and Brookings? Hard pass! It would be great if it was a say Rice and UTSA. That I could 100% get behind. If we have to go FCS, how about Davis and Sac State? Those are probably better choices. A resurrected Cal State Fullerton or Long Beach State program would probably be even better in the long-run. I think there is little doubt when it comes to the "who" all options are on the table. UU, ASU, and UofA were not looking to leave and were steadfast until O and W pulled their BS. Given an attractive alternative, I think all three of these schools would strongly reconsider their options. The B12 without OU and Texas is really just buying time and not a long term escape to safety. Their days are numbered too and a surviving PAC going forward will likely accelerate that. Edit: from a baseball perspective, a conference with OSU, ASU, UA, UU, Fresno State, WSU, is a very solid start |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 20, 2023 16:02:49 GMT -8
I'm thinking the other P4 conferences can't vote the CFP bid away. Thought I read somewhere that it takes a unanimous vote of all 10 P5 ad G5 conferences to change the current status. If so, I can think of 2 conferences that would vote no if the relegation idea were in effect. Now I don't know if there's a time limit on the NCAA bylaws. I'm thinking if this were to take fruition and work, we might see the other four G5 conferences pairing up into two groups of two conferences each and doing a similar thing. To me it sounds of inspiration more than desperation. There is no Pac-X CFP bid next year. Currently, the top six conference champions get an auto-bid into the 12-team playoff. The debate is whether there continues to be six conference champion spots or whether the Power Four will contract that down to five spots. With California and Stanford, the Power Four has the ability to contract the auto-bids down to five spots with or without the Pac-X or the Mountain West. Curious, how does having Stanford and California allow the P4 to change things? I missed that somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 20, 2023 17:54:53 GMT -8
Mike84 There is no Pac-X CFP bid next year. Currently, the top six conference champions get an auto-bid into the 12-team playoff. The debate is whether there continues to be six conference champion spots or whether the Power Four will contract that down to five spots. With California and Stanford, the Power Four has the ability to contract the auto-bids down to five spots with or without the Pac-X or the Mountain West. Curious, how does having Stanford and California allow the P4 to change things? I missed that somewhere. Without California, Southern Methodist, and Stanford, the Power Four would have needed a fifth conference to outnumber the Group of Five. With California, Southern Methodist, and Stanford, the Group of Four outnumbers the other teams. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 20, 2023 20:55:48 GMT -8
Curious, how does having Stanford and California allow the P4 to change things? I missed that somewhere. Without California, Southern Methodist, and Stanford, the Power Four would have needed a fifth conference to outnumber the Group of Five. With California, Southern Methodist, and Stanford, the Group of Four outnumbers the other teams. Do the individual teams get votes, or the conferences? The playoff committee supposedly has 1 representative from each of the P5 and G5 conferences from what I've read. They apparently just 3 weeks ago and basically decided to punt for now. There will be more meetings. I've no idea if things can be changed by a simple majority, a super majority, or as I've heard, only by unanimous vote. If it's 1 conference 1 vote, the P4 can't impose its will on the rest by either of those measures. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 20, 2023 21:10:55 GMT -8
Without California, Southern Methodist, and Stanford, the Power Four would have needed a fifth conference to outnumber the Group of Five. With California, Southern Methodist, and Stanford, the Group of Four outnumbers the other teams. Do the individual teams get votes, or the conferences? The playoff committee supposedly has 1 representative from each of the P5 and G5 conferences from what I've read. They apparently just 3 weeks ago and basically decided to punt for now. There will be more meetings. I've no idea if things can be changed by a simple majority, a super majority, or as I've heard, only by unanimous vote. If it's 1 conference 1 vote, the P4 can't impose its will on the rest by either of those measures. Not sure what all the P4/5 talk is about. As long as the Pac12 exists there is a P5. To remove a conference it takes a unanimous vote. P5 doesn't exist under NCAA rules. The separation was created because the "rich" was vastly outnumbered/voted on key financial issues they could afford. The "Autonomous 5" was created and they basically get extra benefits and to vote on rulings that are specific to their schools. At last vote there were 80 votes... 65 schools and 3 student athletes from each conference totaling 15. Obviously that number will change with additions because of the realignment. But, for now the only major change that can take place is how the 12 team CFP is organized. But, that is not under NCAA purview. |
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Sept 20, 2023 22:58:10 GMT -8
We're already in a relegation model. The marketplace of college athletics sent us down to the G5 while BYU, UH, Cincy, and UCF got bumped up to the P5. Or was it USF? Who cares? They're both the same to me. Seemed like the main consideration for the moves wasn't the strength of the teams but other factors.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 20, 2023 23:47:57 GMT -8
We're already in a relegation model. The marketplace of college athletics sent us down to the G5 while BYU, UH, Cincy, and UCF got bumped up to the P5. Or was it USF? Who cares? They're both the same to me. Seemed like the main consideration for the moves wasn't the strength of the teams but other factors. We have not been relegated to the G5 level if the PAC survives. Maybe in some people's minds. It's been posted a few times that the NCAA bylaws have 5 autonomous conferences and the PAC is one of them, it takes a unanimous vote to change that. Until the PAC officially dissolves, or votes against itself, or the NCAA changes the bylaws, we're still a Power 5 school. Some fans may have given up, OSU and WSU haven't. |
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Sept 21, 2023 4:36:51 GMT -8
We're already in a relegation model. The marketplace of college athletics sent us down to the G5 while BYU, UH, Cincy, and UCF got bumped up to the P5. Or was it USF? Who cares? They're both the same to me. Seemed like the main consideration for the moves wasn't the strength of the teams but other factors. We have not been relegated to the G5 level if the PAC survives. Maybe in some people's minds. It's been posted a few times that the NCAA bylaws have 5 autonomous conferences and the PAC is one of them, it takes a unanimous vote to change that. Until the PAC officially dissolves, or votes against itself, or the NCAA changes the bylaws, we're still a Power 5 school. Some fans may have given up, OSU and WSU haven't. I know. I've read the posts that have said that the Pac is an Automatic 5 conferences and will remain so unless there is an anonymous vote to remove the Pac from such status. I haven't given up. If OSU and WSU keep the Pac alive, and I very much hope they do, they may be an automatic qualifier but that status does not change the fact that we will now be in a conference that pays significantly less than the old Pac. It also has significantly less prestige than the old Pac, but I really don't care about that. The reality is that the market has relegated us down a level. |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Sept 21, 2023 5:37:53 GMT -8
We have not been relegated to the G5 level if the PAC survives. Maybe in some people's minds. It's been posted a few times that the NCAA bylaws have 5 autonomous conferences and the PAC is one of them, it takes a unanimous vote to change that. Until the PAC officially dissolves, or votes against itself, or the NCAA changes the bylaws, we're still a Power 5 school. Some fans may have given up, OSU and WSU haven't. I know. I've read the posts that have said that the Pac is an Automatic 5 conferences and will remain so unless there is an anonymous vote to remove the Pac from such status. I haven't given up. If OSU and WSU keep the Pac alive, and I very much hope they do, they may be an automatic qualifier but that status does not change the fact that we will now be in a conference that pays significantly less than the old Pac. It also has significantly less prestige than the old Pac, but I really don't care about that. The reality is that the market has relegated us down a level. Your last sentence,,,,,agree, we pretty much are already there. |
|
