Oregon St AD talks about the possibility of a promotion/relegation model in college athletics.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38457319/promotion-relegation-model-worthy-study
TL;DR
The current athletic director for Oregon State says a promotion/relegation model similar to European soccer could come to college football in the future. He's obviously biased because his team would benefit from a system like that, especially now with OSU being ranked in the top 15 and having a great season. WSU would have a similar benefit.
The article goes on to state that it is unlikely to happen as even European soccer teams are trying to break away from promotion/relegation systems. The now defunct Super League was an attempt to do just that. The American model is more profitable for the teams at the top and it would likely take a top team to be in favor of promotion/relegation for it to come to college football.
Either way, interesting idea.
September 22nd, 2023 at 9:50 AM ^
Unfortunately for him, his school has already faced the one form of relegation college football has.
September 22nd, 2023 at 10:37 AM ^
Sort of, but it's a relegation based on income potential, not football success. Which really isn't the way it should be set up at all
September 22nd, 2023 at 10:54 AM ^
It's relegation based on conference realignment. Which has been a part of college football far longer than a lot of people would like to admit.
Just ask USF and Uconn. Or Rice and SMU. Or even Wyoming and Idaho. Hell, I'm pretty sure even Boise State has some thoughts.
And I personally think relegation is unnecessary if college football was set up the way I think it should be set up. Conferences required to play a full round-robin schedule. So, essentially maxing conferences at 13 teams (for those that are willing to have no non-conference games). And then an 8 or 12 team (I can be convinced either way) playoff, with a minimum of half of the slots being guaranteed to conference champs, plus home field advantage for the higher seed before the semis.
September 22nd, 2023 at 1:09 PM ^
The examples you all gave are relatively recent, imho. Can go back to something like the SEC seceding from the Southern Conference, or U of Chicago and Sewanee choosing to de-emphasize football entirely.
I'm curious what happens the first time conferences go to negotiate a new contract and the TV networks come back with no increase, or a slight decrease vs the old contract. Do we start talking about dumping the Indiana/Purdues of the world, or do they self-relegate? Or something else entirely unforeseen happens?
One thing is certain. Anything you think is static in this world, or people insist is static is not.
September 22nd, 2023 at 1:33 PM ^
Wyoming* and Idaho are examples from the Pacific Coast Conference. Which is far from recent. Plus, Rice and SMU is pre-BCS, not exactly recent either. That's equally close to the 70s as it is to current day.
*correction, it was Montana not Wyoming.
September 22nd, 2023 at 9:51 AM ^
Makes perfect sense and I would love it if I were neutral.
It's a terrible deal for schools like Michigan which is why I don't actually want it and it will never happen.
Maybe some of the schools that get left out of the future College Super League will try it someday, though.
September 22nd, 2023 at 6:20 PM ^
College careers are simply too short for players to want to put up with a season (or more) in relegation purgatory. Once a team would be relegated, it would be picked clean in the transfer portal.
September 22nd, 2023 at 7:07 PM ^
Absolutely. Not that different from relegated soccer teams having to sell off their expensive players.
September 22nd, 2023 at 8:12 PM ^
Don't the majority of teams that get promoted end up relegated again within two years?
September 22nd, 2023 at 8:52 PM ^
I don't know the exact stats but it's something like. But I think it's closer to 50% than 100%.
September 22nd, 2023 at 9:55 AM ^
Given the current state of MSU football, I am in favor of this concept.
I would not, however, have been in favor of this between 2008 and 2014.
Like all fans, I am in favor of whatever benefits my team at that specific moment.
I reserver the right to change my mind about this concept should the fortunes of Michigan Football change for the worse at some point.
September 22nd, 2023 at 10:18 AM ^
We weren't bad enough from 08-14 to be relegated though. 2009 was the worst (1-7, 5-7), but we still edged out IU (1-7, 4-8).
September 22nd, 2023 at 11:05 AM ^
Most relegation leagues have multiple teams move down. For instance, 3 teams per year are relegated from and promoted to the English Premier League. I think we would have been relegated in 2009 under most models.
September 22nd, 2023 at 11:10 AM ^
I agree. Especially when you look at the coming conference sizes. A 20 team Big Ten would likely have multiple teams relegated per season if relegation were a thing. Under those circumstances, a team that goes 1-7 in conference play is a near certainty to be relegated.
September 22nd, 2023 at 2:48 PM ^
A 20 team conference is actually perfect for pro / rel. 10 team A league and 10 team B league. Nine game conference schedule against the other 9 in your league. Three up, three down each year.
September 22nd, 2023 at 4:27 PM ^
Ever since they added Oregon and Washington I’ve been clamoring for the Big Ten to add 2 more and go to a model like this. You could even go to 10 conference games so you could have 1 cross-division game for rivalry protection in years when teams like OSU and UM end up in opposite sides of the league (and have that one game not count toward your team’s actual divisional standing or relegation status). Would be so much fun but would never happen.
September 22nd, 2023 at 9:58 AM ^
Desperate times call for desperate measures
September 22nd, 2023 at 10:00 AM ^
I’m not 100% opposed to the idea but here’s my issues with promotion/relegation:
I feel like it’s by and large going to be the same relative group of teams that are going between leagues in a given year. You’ll never, ever see the likes of a Georgia, Alabama or OSU get relegated. They’re always going to be too good to ever be in that discussion. I imagine it works that way with European football as well, in that there are just some clubs that will never have to worry about relegation because they’re too good on a year in year out basis. They have too much money and too many resources at their disposal. And then there are the perennial bottom feeders who will probably never have any hope of promotion.
That leaves you with the middle ground. The P5 teams that are awful at their level, could go to the G5, probably be pretty good, then get promoted back to P5 just to be slaughtered again. Your Indianas, Vanderbilts, Northwesterns, etc. And then there’s the G5 teams that are good enough to get promoted, only to come up to P5 and get their rude awakening, all to be relegated back to G5 within the next year or two.
Again, I’m not completely opposed to the idea, but my uneducated guess says that promotion/relegation are probably reserved for a specific subset of teams that’ll never be good enough to be true contenders, and not quite bad enough to be completely hopeless every year.
Its like being a bubble team every single year.
September 22nd, 2023 at 6:44 PM ^
That's how it generally works in the Japanese X-league (that Gardner, Gallon, et al) played in. With their relegation system (where the top two teams of a lower division play the bottom two teams of higher division for their spot). There are a few well-funded franchises that are in the playoffs every year and never in danger of relegation, and most of the rest, with those teams in the middle going back and forth from year to year. (So I'd imagine they'd probably hate it too).
I think at one point they divided the top division into an upper and lower division (a kind of 1a and 1b) with about six or eight teams each, and the playoffs includes of three teams from 1a and one team from 1b.
September 22nd, 2023 at 7:51 PM ^
That's not how it would work, though, in an ideal promotion/relegation world. For example, in English futbol (soccer), the top 5 leagues are, in order from best to worst, the Premier League, English Football League Championship, English Football League One, English Football League Two, and the National League.
So the "Premier League" in college football would likely be the following teams: Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Notre Dame, LSU, Georgia, Penn State, Texas, Auburn, Oklahoma, Florida, Clemson, and Texas A & M.
Each team would play each other, with the worst two teams being relegated to the "English Football League Championship", which would likely be the following teams: Tennessee, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Florida State, Michigan State, Iowa, USC, South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, Miami (FL), Washington, and Oregon.
The top two teams there would be promoted to the "Premier League", and the bottom two would be relegated, so on and so forth.
I got the rankings from here, if you want to dispute who should be where: https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/new-and-improved-ranking-84-college-football-programs-by-brand-value-6e2c65f64515
I honestly could see a scenario where FOX and ESPN sign on to this and pay enough to the schools to make it worth their while. Which might be better for college sports as a whole.
September 22nd, 2023 at 10:06 AM ^
Lemme know what P5 team is going to sign up for the possibility of getting relegated and losing out on an enormous amount of money per season. It's never, ever going to happen.
September 22nd, 2023 at 10:21 AM ^
Lemme know what P5 team is going to sign up
Oregon State and Washington State.
Unless you meant P4 and not P5.
September 22nd, 2023 at 1:10 PM ^
Yeah, those two teams volunteered.
September 22nd, 2023 at 10:12 AM ^
No because scheduling would be a nightmare for these athletic departments, and the lower teams would be kept low as they would lose out on TV revenue.
Also, it’s one of those things that sounds great on paper, but the execution would go over very poorly I think, and ultimately it favors the top 1% of teams, which Michigan teeters there obviously, but still bad.
I think conference expansion has been good for BiG10 and SEC, as the lower teams will get some resources to help them become more competitive.
Honestly, this is just an awful deal with WSU and Oregon St, feel bad for them.
I’m thinking the Big12 would be very wise to expand and add them, and probably BYU (if they would ever drop independent status) and Boise State as well.
September 22nd, 2023 at 11:08 AM ^
The Big 12 already added BYU this year.
September 22nd, 2023 at 10:21 AM ^
This is never going to happen. The entire economics of the media ecosystem that makes big-time D1 college athletics so lucrative would have to be discarded for a system like this. A fun thought exercise, but nothing more.
September 22nd, 2023 at 2:44 PM ^
I wonder if 12 of the 18 teams in the new B1G see themselves as top-half, and would be in favor of it, if being in the top 9 meant more money. Looking at MSU, Nebraska, UCLA, Minnesota, Maryland as teams not in the top half but think they are. And even if they're not, it might still be the right move for them, if being in the top league once every 4-5 years means more money.
September 22nd, 2023 at 10:27 AM ^
this was a great idea, and one I supported thoroughly by pairing P5 conferences with regional G5 conferences (B1G:MAC, PAC12:MWC, etc.)
but the evolution of CFB over that last decade to the current landscape (see tv dollars running college football) has made this a 100% no go
September 22nd, 2023 at 10:39 AM ^
I've long thought this would be a good idea just within the big ten. If we have 18 or 20 teams, we could have two divisions of 9 or 10, and have one or two move up and down each year. Would create way more competitive games, and as long as revenue is still split evenly I don't see why anyone would be mad about it
September 22nd, 2023 at 10:55 AM ^
Once a second division is created that division is automatically less valuable. Those teams are all more valuable in the top division.
If the top division teams have to share their revenue evenly with the second division, the top division teams will not want to do that.
The only way this would make everyone happy is if pro/rel actually increased everyone's bottom line overnight. It will not do that.
September 22nd, 2023 at 11:28 AM ^
The top shares revenue with the bottom now, how would this be different from that perspective? I think it would increase the value of the TV deals overnight, because there would be way more marquee games. The top division teams would all play each other each year
September 22nd, 2023 at 11:56 AM ^
You have just made the Big Ten 2nd division essentially the MAC. Attendance and ratings will go way down for those teams. And you have just invited every top division team to risk going down at any given year if they have a down year, where ratings and attendance will suck by comparison to the top division.
So maybe I am wrong, but that does not feel like a sure bet to increase revenue across the conference.
September 22nd, 2023 at 12:00 PM ^
It's an interesting debate, I can't be sure I'm right either. But I have friends who are northwestern and minnesota fans that are big football people but often have to give up on their seasons early because they have no chance to win the big ten. Seems like this may drive some interest in lower level schools as they fight to win the lower league, and the mid-top level ones as they try not to get relegated. Could be wrong though of course
September 22nd, 2023 at 11:05 AM ^
From what I've read in other articles the idea was for the PAC and Mountain West to be a linked conferences with promotions from MWC to PAC and relegation from PAC to MWC.
Personally I think it's an awesome idea, and would increase my interest in PAC and MWC games.
September 22nd, 2023 at 11:12 AM ^
Yes and it helps the teams at the bottom tremendously increase their viewership. Suddenly their games become more interesting. Would you watch Indiana football if they were playing for a chance to stay in the Big Ten this season instead of just trying to get through the schedule?
September 22nd, 2023 at 11:21 AM ^
Hmmmmm, no one wants to join up with us for a media contract. I think we should study the idea of asking a group of schools with a media contract to play a lottery where we boot one school out and get in ourselves. Surely offering no benefit to the group of schools whatsoever will make them think about doing this.
September 22nd, 2023 at 12:05 PM ^
Many people seem intrigued by this idea, including some higher ups at Oregon St and WSU, but personally I agree with other posters that it is ultimately impractical. What I think is going to happen is that within the next 8-10 years or so the top ~40-50ish P5 football powerhouses are going to break away and form their own league.
That will leave the lower tier P5 schools such as Indiana, NW, Vanderbilt, etc. to play mostly amongst themselves in a separate league. While I don't like the idea of Michigan and our football peers morphing into a semi-professional league it's partially there already and there seems to be no stopping the money grab by the networks and streamers.
September 22nd, 2023 at 12:51 PM ^
CFB needs to be careful, though. At the end of the day, the quality of play is objectively worse than the NFL. Instead, people watch CFB because of the allegiance to the school, the nostalgia, the quaintness of the student athlete. If CFB becomes too professionalized and divorced from its roots, you’re just left with a second NFL but bad.
September 22nd, 2023 at 1:57 PM ^
I agree with you although it is somewhat counter-intuitive to try and imagine our beloved school/team being less attractive to watch. One of the hallmarks of the NFL is the way that they maintain relative parity. Despite big city markets, medium and small markets, most teams are within hailing distance of .500 at any given time. There are outliers at the top and the bottom, of course, but those are managed by draft order.
In a CFB super league (of sorts) I wonder how it will look and feel if the top ~50 schools play mostly each other during the regular season. Most of us hate the cupcake non-conference games and many of the B1G games against the lower tier schools mentioned above, but of course those games are all-but sure wins that pad the record.
If we play 9-12 games per season against high level competition there is bound to be greater parity, at least eventually. If we start losing 3-4+ games per season bc our competition is more or less our equal it's going to feel very different than what we are used to. Perhaps like a mini-NFL which, as you said, not as 'good.'
September 22nd, 2023 at 4:27 PM ^
As long as we're contenders for the hypothetical 16-team playoff (I expanded it for our future scenario), it will feel kind of like college basketball, which is different but still good.
The traditions of college football have been eroding for quite some time now. So far it hasn't killed or even hurt interest based on the meaningful numbers (i.e., dollars).
As long as people can delude themselves into believing there's a meaningful connection between the school and the athletes, I think college sports will continue to thrive.
September 22nd, 2023 at 12:56 PM ^
You bring up a really good point. If TV executives can be a major driving force behind adding certain schools because they bring value to a conference, what is to stop them from eventually saying they want to drop a school because it doesn't add value, or it drags everyone else's share of the pie down?
What is to stop FOX, NBC or CBS from one day telling the Big Ten "At the end of the next TV contract, you need to drop Northwestern, Rutgers and Indiana from the conference because they are dead weight on a football field."? I'm sure it would result in massive lawsuits from said schools, but I guarantee at least one person at each of these networks has engaged in a thought exercise with their team about how they could accomplish this.
September 22nd, 2023 at 12:11 PM ^
Hey Penn St/USC/Michigan fans what do you guys think about a system where you are in the MAC if you have a rough season?
Yeah no its silly and dumb and talked about way to much. Why the fuck would you agree to destroy your own program?
September 22nd, 2023 at 12:32 PM ^
This would be more like being relegated to the Big 10 west division. The big 10 has 18 teams. No one is talking about the worst big ten team being relegated to the MAC, at least they shouldn’t be if they understand the proposal.
PSU/USC//UofM would be stuck playing Rutgers, Maryland and Northwestern, which we’re doing now anyway in a less structured, chaotic way.
September 22nd, 2023 at 12:55 PM ^
This is a great idea - but they should make the divisons smaller to keep team x-division rivalries salient, and should give the lower division champs a way to play int he title game. So instead of two 9 team divisions, maybe three 6 team divisions? or maybe require 2 x-division games in the 9-team variety to keep rivalries alive.
September 22nd, 2023 at 4:35 PM ^
Nobody of importance is talking about either scenario. Going sideways is not relegation. If you stay in the same conference that isnt being relegated. This all dumb anyway. You think USFL is going to convince the NFL to do this.
September 22nd, 2023 at 12:29 PM ^
For the folks poo-pooing this, they’re not suggesting transforming CFB overnight. This is more of a creative solution to the OSU/WSU problem. By merging with the Mountain West and adding a couple teams, they can go to 2 divisions, one with good teams and one with not good teams. It would undoubtedly be good for an SDSU. Maybe not so good for Utah State or San Jose State, but they are just body bags for the P4.5 teams. If they have a semi-realistic path for moving up, that could help recruiting.
The proposal was for 2 teams to move up and 2 to move down. The winner of the bottom moves up and there’s a playoff between #2 and #3 to see who else moves up.
Scheduling would be no more difficult than today with 2, no make that 4, teams joining the Big10 next year. If this let the conferences have time to coalesce, it would be a good thing.
Projecting this into a Big10 model is problematic. This doesn’t work as well for a conference with teams from coast to coast.
If Michigan had a really down year and got relegated, that would suck, but we shouldn’t feel entitled to compete in the top division just because of past performance.
September 22nd, 2023 at 3:06 PM ^
To elaborate on the article a little more, the promotion model is replicated in the relegation scenario. The worst team in the Big Bro division would automatically get relegated and then the next two worst teams in the Big Bro division would play each other with the loser being the other team relegated.
This is different than what I had in mind where the two best teams in the Lil Bro divisions would play the two worst teams in the Big Bro division with the winner of each being in the Big Bro division the following year and the losers in the Lil Bro division.
I think I like the author's version better. It gives teams a reason to try to win the division outright--or not come in dead last.
September 22nd, 2023 at 4:56 PM ^
Where is the proposal? I can't find it. The OSU AD was speaking generally and talking about looking at options.
The ESPN article linked something called Front Office Sports which claims to have reviewed the Boise State associate athletic director's proposal and describes something slightly different than what you are. It specifically says it's a 24-team, three-tier model (which is crazy, why not 2 tiers of 12 teams).
It makes no mention of how many teams move up or down a tier or how it's determined (playoff or just the standings).
What am I missing?
September 22nd, 2023 at 12:35 PM ^
I don't really get the value of promotion/relegation in sports, but in particular OSU and WSU (and schools of that level) must recognize that while they're doing well now Oregon St. is coming off a run under Gary Anderson that was 2-10, 4-8, 1-11, and then 2-10 under current coach Jonathan Smith. They'd absolutely have gotten relegated at that point and I doubt they'd find it easy to get out.