Restructuring CFB: A Proposal for Relegation and Dynamic Conferences

Submitted by bklein09 on

A friend of mine came up with this system for restructuring college football in a way that gives every team an equal shot at playing for the National Championship. He asked if I would post it on the board to get everyone's thoughts and perhaps stimulate some interesting discussion. This seemed like a Diary post to me, but I apologize if it would be better suited for the Board. Enjoy! 

"What if I told you there is a way for every team in the country to have an equal opportunity at playing for the national championship? Without adding games to the schedule? And making every single bowl game unique and meaningful? Preseason rankings won't artificially buoy overrated teams? Top non power 5 conference teams won't be left out in the cold? More standardization of strength of schedules? Let me propose a relegation based system to allow a true champion to be crowned every year. 
 
The first step in the process is to eliminate conferences. At least as they are currently known. Stay with me. In their place will be 8 different 10 team conferences and 4 different 12 team conferences, which includes all current 128 football bowl subdivision teams. Each team will play each other team in the division one time per season. At the end of the season the teams within a conference are ranked by record. In the event of a tie in records, head to head matchups would be used. If three or more teams are tied, order would be determined by positive point differentials in matchups between those teams. So if team A scored 100 points total against teams B and C, and allowed 70 points, their differential would be +30. The greater differential means the higher ranking. 
 
Let's talk more about the 8 and 4 conference groups. The 8 different 10 team conferences will act as the premier league does in European soccer, with the champion emerging from those groups and the bottom teams being relegated. The 4 different 12 team conferences would determine the teams that will be promoted for their opportunity for the crown. 
 
So, now that we have the conferences ranked the playoffs will already be set. For the 8 different 10 team conferences, each 1 seed enters into an 8 team playoff for the championship. Each 2 seed enters their own 8 team playoff. This process repeats for seeds 3 , 4 and 5. This creates 35 bowl games. The bottom 2 ranked teams, so 9 and 10, from each of these conferences then gets relegated to the 4 conferences of 12. To replace them, the top 4 from each 12 team conference gets called up to the 8 different 10 team conferences. 
 
With the relegation occurring, there will be new conferences every year. Since these will constantly be changing, I think the best way to determine the new conferences each year is a draft system. All of the number 1 teams will be in their own conference. Those teams then go in order of ranking at the end of the season to pick one team to join their conference for the next season. Then that new team drafts the next team, and so on until all 10 teams am determined. An example would be team A chooses team B from the pool of remaining teams. Then after all the other conferences have picked, team B chooses team C for that conference and the process repeats itself. This allows teams to retain rivalries if that is a priority, or shape their schedule, while equalizing strength of schedule and variability for all teams. 
 
What about home and away scheduling? That is a great question. After conferences are determined, each team would be randomly assigned a number. Each number can have a predetermined schedule with built in off weeks and which week they will play the other numbers within their conference. These schedules need only be established one time, as teams numbers, and as such their schedules, will vary year to year. 
 
I understand the process has some weaknesses. What will happen to all the cable networks for specific conferences? What will the selection committee do with themselves if team results actually dictate who makes the playoffs? Plus all 128 teams would have to buy into the system. True, this change would result in a high initial cost. But once the networks have found their roll I believe they would be in position to take advantage of a college football season where every single game matters. 
 
Whether you are playing for the championship, to get to the premier conferences, or to avoid relegation, every game has a purpose and is critical to your team's success. Not to mention that the top 80 teams get a chance every year at the title and all 128 teams have the ability to play into the top 80 and take their shot. I would love to hear people's takes on this approach and if something like this, while unlikely in reality, would make sense in a hypothetical world."

Comments

Charles Wood's son

January 24th, 2016 at 1:53 PM ^

I think it's an interesting and creative idea. But, I think it creates more problems than it solves. While the concept would give non-power conference teams a better chance, I can see the following problems:
1. The draft system only preserves rivalries for the drafting team.
2. Teams relegated to the 12-team conferences will have a recruiting disadvantage
3. Teams like Iowa this year would probably be in the 12-team conference and unable to have a "magical" run to the Rose Bowl.
4. Regular season is only 9 games (issue for tv, ticket sales, etc.)
5. Bowl games - would still be meaningless
6. The number one team in a conference could load their conference with teams they matchup well against ( from a style of play standpoint).
7. It's not fair to the players to be relegated to the lower conference based on the performance of players that have since graduated.

I'm sure there are more that I am not thinking of right now.

Fitz

January 25th, 2016 at 8:40 AM ^

1. As I read it, #1 picks the 2nd team, #2 picks the 3rd team, etc. That would likely preserve regional rivalries.

2. Those teams probably have a recruiting disadvantage as it currently stands.

3. Iowa would have finished tied for 6th last year (using just conference record) so they could still have had their season.

4. If some teams have 11 regular season games it would make sense that everyone has that many. You can still have out of conference games to ensure rivalry games occur.

5. Status quo.

6. Same as above, each team only picks one conference member.

7. It isn't a whole lot different than it is now. Players that choose the Alabamas and the Ohio States can be pretty sure they won't be relegated but they may not get much playing time. It's essentially the same thing as the guys who have a choice at being a starter for a MAC team or a special teams/back up at a power 5 school.

 

Stuck in Lansing

January 24th, 2016 at 1:59 PM ^

If you really want to do relegation pick conferences by region: West, Plains, Midwest/Northeast, and South. Top 16 teams in each region make the top conference. It preserves most rivalries, we would play Notre Dame again, Rutgers would be kicked out of our conference. Even then I would probably dislike the result because of shifting divisions and the possbility of one bad coach leading to a program killing relegation.

jshclhn

January 25th, 2016 at 12:58 PM ^

I agree - geography has to be a consideration.  Not desirable for Rutgers to end up in a conference with all West Coast teams or San Jose to end up in a conference with all East Coast teams.

As a memo, we would have been relegated based on our 2008 performance (tied for 2nd to last in conf with Purdue, and we lost to them head-to-head for the tiebreaker).

 

EGD

January 24th, 2016 at 2:19 PM ^

I didn't care for the penultimate paragraph. The idea is interesting but wildly impractical and has some serious theoretical (having teams draft their own competition seems fraught with problems) well as logistical (how do teams ensure their home schedules are strong enough to maintain strong ticket sales) flaws. But instead of acknowledging legitimate concerns and attempting to address them, the author expresses disdain for potential objectors. That's unfortunate considering the most value this proposal could ever hope to produce is a good discussion of how to structure college football playoff systems.

jmblue

January 24th, 2016 at 5:24 PM ^

1.  The identity of a program is not as tied to a specific conference as your friend thinks.  No matter what conference Michigan is in, it will still be Michigan.  No matter what conference EMU is in, it will still be EMU.  

2.  Relegation/promotion might sound cool in the abstract but is horrible when it comes to competitive balance.  The rich get richer and the poor struggle to scrape by.  If a college football team gets relegated, its recruiting will collapse and any quality members of its coaching staff will bolt for greener pastures.  No good player or coach wants to compete in a crap league if he can avoid it. 

The main "accomplishment" of relegation is that it creates a new goal for crappy teams: stay in the league.  The little clubs in all the European leagues do not envision ever winning a title.  What they sell their fans is just that they're there, having survived for another season.  When they have a rare good season, they get raided by richer clubs.  It's a miserable existence for them.

 

Blue_sophie

January 25th, 2016 at 7:00 PM ^

Would be great for the teams that typically struggle to balance their finances. Getting an opportunity to snag a year or 2 of major conference TV deals would be a windfall for a MAC/WAC athletic department. On the other hand I would just as soon do away with national championships in college football all together. Having a Rosebowl b/t B1G and Pac12 is all the championship I need.

phork

January 25th, 2016 at 8:36 AM ^

Lets just end the charade and make four 16 team conferences, or eight 8 team conferences.   Realistically there are maybe 20 programs that can compete for players to play at the level needed to win a NC so 64 includes the also-rans who run a great season from time to time.  Lets face it, the EMUs and SanJoseSts don't ever have a chance to do that.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

January 25th, 2016 at 9:40 AM ^

I once had a professor who started a lot of sentences with, "Imagine if...." or "Imagine a world where...."  The sentence would invariably end with something that was neato to talk about but wildly unfeasible.

This idea, along with the one in the OP, falls in the same category.  They're whizbang neato fun to talk about but they require some dictator to impose order on a chaotic system.  Nice, but all such proposals will stay in happy gumdrop rainbow land until someone can get 128 university presidents to agree on something.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

January 25th, 2016 at 2:52 PM ^

Even that borders on the completely impossible.  A simple yes or no question like "will we be better off without the NCAA" will have 64 different answers.  I mean, you won't even get the top 30 to agree who the bottom 34 should be.  And dumping the entire NCAA structure and then recreating it from top to bottom again just for the sake of having a cooler football playoff (but a way less cool basketball one) is, to put it mildly, a tough sell.

kyeblue

January 25th, 2016 at 9:46 AM ^

should not have football program at all, or at least should run it without asking subsidies from school general fund and student fees. It is unethical or even illegal for public universities to force every students paying for the cost of their football team or divert tax payer money to something that has little to do with education. I see zero benefit out of it for the general student body. there are too much obsession about producing a NC, I wasperfect happy with the old bowl system, where every big ten and pac 10 team played for Rose bowl very year.

AcheBlue

January 25th, 2016 at 10:09 AM ^

As long as we are dreaming, make it six regional conferences: B1G, SEC, Pac12, Big12, ACC, Big East. All teams align with one of the six. Each conference divides into upper and lower division.

Upper division can have ten (9 conf. games) or eleven (10 conf games) teams. Round robin schedule - teams are responsible for filling up to 12 total games with OOC (or upper/lower div) match-ups. Relegation/promotion rules are up to the conferences to determine.

Seed 6 conf. champs plus two at-large teams. Play 1st round at site of choice of the higher seed during the first week in December.

After 1st round, bowl bids go out for all remaining teams, including losers of opening round. Play semi-final and championship rounds at pre-determined locations as currently happens now.

A committee only has to to decide which at-large teams to invite and seeding (at-large are 7 and 8 seeds). If you didn't win your conference, don't complain about a non-invite.

youn2948

January 25th, 2016 at 1:12 PM ^

We could end plays, remove most of the padding, outlaw using our hands and try to kick a round ball into a rectangle instead.

Maybe we could even call it futbol or soccer?

The Maizer

January 25th, 2016 at 5:36 PM ^

I think this would still destroy rivalries. Even with the draft system you'd only get to choose one rival, and that's only if no one else has drafted them. We would not be playing OSU every year and that would be a shame.

Also, I wonder how each conference would look. I don't know about other people, but I'd rather play conference games against Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, etc. than Rice, UTEP, South Alabama, etc. You might be making every game important, but a lot of those games are going to be real snoozers.

Also, count me as disliking a system where Michigan will frequently play games at schools like UNLV, Louisiana Monroe, and *gasp* Eastern Michigan.

Having said all that, interesting idea. Just too many negatives.

Blue since day 1

January 25th, 2016 at 10:29 PM ^

this thats way way too much change to a system thats not that bad. The conferences will not just change like that because these conferences are businesses too. A conference could have 2 powerhouses that deserve a shot at the championship . There are a lot more reasons why this is just too flawed.

A2 Born n Raised

January 26th, 2016 at 10:40 AM ^

1. Expand the playoff teams to 8

2. Each power 5 conference sends their champion

3. Leaving 3 at-large bids.  (Possibly holding 1 or 2 spots for non power 5 teams)

4. May the best team win

Blue since day 1

January 26th, 2016 at 7:28 PM ^

This works and isnt a complete restructure to a decent system, but 1 thing I would think should be added to this is that you have to have a certain amount of wins as a P5 Conference championship in case any conference is weak (10 seems reasonable).

JonnyHintz

January 26th, 2016 at 11:13 AM ^

My issue is, conferences aren't all about sports. The Big Ten was created to collaborate like-minded universities in the Midwest with the goals of higher research. It wasn't about football. It was about top academic institutions sharing research money and goals.

JonnyHintz

January 27th, 2016 at 8:26 AM ^

The conference itself is about athletics. I could have worded it better, but the conference (meaning all the schools) are unified for purposes larger than just athletics. We are tied together in sports because of our ties academically and (until recently) geographically. Now if you put the schools and conferences in a state of flux over performance on an annual basis, you're destroying what these conferences (or the Big Ten at least) were found upon. Something we have been tied together on for over 100 years.