College Fusbol

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Thanks for your input Al, not that it matters, and Peter, your points are valid and appreciated.


In defense of a relegation system, it seems to have worked very well for decades across the pond. With the increased shuffling of teams and players recently in college football, the conference identity is lost and the portal option has a negative impact on competitive balance.

So why not give relegation a whirl. In the premier division, the top ten or twelve teams would all have similar schedules, virtually identical. Having the cream rise to the top would establish a national champion.

Or is it better to have 6, 8 or 10 undefeated teams via for a playoff slot by a committee of 4 dudes who know that their choices will upset Ohio State and Florida State.

I say let the top 12 teams use the playing field to sort themselves out.

Since it is your thread, I guess I should focus my comments on your suggestion. I am a fan of the English football relegation system, and think it could work in Major League baseball, where there are several teams that can't consistently compete (Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Miami, Oakland/Las Vegas/Mexico City) and strong AAA cities that could move up to take their places for a few years. For the fans, relegation lessens the chance of tanking, so that games are more competitive. It also gives bottom half teams, with no hope of the playoffs, something to compete for, and creates interest.

As far as extending the concept to college "non-professional" sports, I think as I understand it, what you are advocating for is more of a Super League, where the top teams from all conferences would move to a (newly created?) conference. These top teams would then duke it out with each other.

All the remaining teams I guess would stay in their current conferences, play schedules that exclude the 12 Superteams, and at the end of the season play conference championships and bowl games, but all without the opportunity of competing to be the National Champion, the best they could hope for would be to move their school into the SuperLeague for the following year.

And I am also guessing that this would just be for football. For basketball, tennis or lacrosse, for example, those 12 teams I assume would go back to their old conferences and compete there.

[Gorditadogg]

With the big money that has come into college sports because of ESPN, the top schools have a huge built-in recruiting advantage already. Kids see Alabama, LSU and Georgia, Ohio State and Michigan, Clemson and Notre Dame on TV all the time. The free marketing those schools get through ESPN's (and others') advertising is incredible. It would definitely be in the interest of those large money-making schools to lock in their profits by joining a SuperLeague. Those programs would become basically self-perpetuating, with the TV money focusing more and more on those lucky schools.

Apart from the fans of those 12 though, I don't think the concept would increase fan interest, or overall competitiveness of the sport. Some casual fans could be drawn to the cleanness of having 12 teams declared the "best" at the beginning of the season, so they could just focus on those teams, but for most of us, who are fans of one of the 120+ other teams that would be "relegated" to the second tier, it would be a disappointment. We would not be able to play against the "top" schools, and would not have a chance, even if we won every game, to compete for a championship.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Since it is your thread, I guess I should focus my comments on your suggestion. I am a fan of the English football relegation system, and think it could work in Major League baseball, where there are several teams that can't consistently compete (Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Miami, Oakland/Las Vegas/Mexico City) and strong AAA cities that could move up to take their places for a few years. For the fans, relegation lessens the chance of tanking, so that games are more competitive. It also gives bottom half teams, with no hope of the playoffs, something to compete for, and creates interest.

As far as extending the concept to college "non-professional" sports, I think as I understand it, what you are advocating for is more of a Super League, where the top teams from all conferences would move to a (newly created?) conference. These top teams would then duke it out with each other.

All the remaining teams I guess would stay in their current conferences, play schedules that exclude the 12 Superteams, and at the end of the season play conference championships and bowl games, but all without the opportunity of competing to be the National Champion, the best they could hope for would be to move their school into the SuperLeague for the following year.

And I am also guessing that this would just be for football. For basketball, tennis or lacrosse, for example, those 12 teams I assume would go back to their old conferences and compete there.

You are making a lot of assumptions about my concept that are not true.

1. Is college football not professional? Hardly the portal system and NIL rules compensate players and discourage loyalty to their alma mater. College basketball in the last ten years entered the one and done era, becoming a year of apprenticeship to the NBA. Currently the minor sports are not a part of the all mighty dollar grab of the major college sports. I do not envision relegating lacrosse, rugby and curling.

2. Maintaining the current conference system for the non-elite teams is not in my proposed system, but rather relegation at the lower levels as well. Obviously eliminating the football conferences entirely is unlikely to happen, but why not an English-system of stepladders to allow competitive balance at all levels. Granted it would take a decade for a division 10 team, like Liberty for example, to rise to the premier level, but it could happen. The geographic configuration of the current conferences has already been lost. Stick a pin in all the locations of ACC teams and use that to tell me where the Atlantic Coast is. The Big Ten (or 12,14,16 or 18) now extends from coast to coast, or at least from the Pacific to Rutgers. Just number the levels or letter them. If you are in the third level, you have the opportunity to move up or move down one level each year. Period.

3. In the Premier first level a team that has a 6-6 record for each of ten years stays at the Premier level, but 2 or 3 teams facing top notch competition weekly would end up 4-8 or worse and they would move down to the second league.
they could move right back up the next year if they go 10-2 at the second level.

I forgot all the points I wanted to make from your posts, but this post is long enough. Al, from your posts, I don't think we are that far apart. If we met in person, fisticuffs would not be in order. I have no illusions about what possibly could happen and that what I am supporting has little chance of happening in the real world, but at least it happened in England and as a living model of relegation, I think it would be a hoot to give it a whirl here. The status quo is difficult to buck, when big bucks are involved, but with relegation there could well be bigger bucks to redistribute.