OT(for now): Detailed article of FSU looking to raise private equity money for, among other things, ACC buyout

ND, Clemson, and FSU to the B1G?  With relegation?  

I don’t see relegation happening.

This will be huge drama.

Imagine going from playing in your CCG to getting relegated to Tier 2.

Relegation won't happen with college sports for the same reason everything else is happening: money. Everyone wants a stable source of high conference income, so the top brands are clambering for the B1G and SEC money streams. The networks want all the top brands consolidated in a few super-conferences because it produces big games that generate viewers.

Who's going to watch Tier 2 games? Nobody. So the networks aren't going to pay as much for them, resulting in decreased conference revenue. What if Tier 2 had decreased revenue? Why on earth would the schools agree to that? With that Tier 1, a down year for any of those teams could result in relegation. No one would be absolutely safe. That would result in a year of MUCH lower revenue, which would be terrible for budgeting. It would also be terrible for recruiting. Either you get a wide variety of teams cycling through the two tiers regularly, in which case no one's getting the reliable high revenue stream they signed up for, or you end up with the same 6 teams getting flipped back and forth every year, creating what amounts to a P5 and G5 conference with a weird relationship. In that case, the schools in Tier 2 never get the high revenue, and nobody in Tier 1 knows who's going to end up getting flipped back and forth a lot until it happens.

And this doesn't even begin to consider other sports. Are all the other sports getting jerked around by the performance of football? Or is football completely decoupled from the other sports and conference affiliation is now by sport? Both would require massive changes to how college athletics is run.

If the #1 concern for the schools is football fan service, then sure, they might consider relegation. But if we've learned anything over the last few years, it's that the schools don't give two shits about the fans in the pursuit of money and wins. Relegation, therefore, is completely off the table as an option until either people stop watching college football, or the schools decide that money and winning aren't all they're cracked up to be.

I just do not understand the appeal of relegation in college football.
 

The lack of parity in college football is a feature, not a bug. And the most memorable games, aside from rivalry matchups, are the upsets (think Purdue-OSU) that probably wouldn’t even be scheduled under a relegation system. Count me among the (maybe) few who hopes realignment ceases for at least the next decade. 

Talking about relegation is silly. Im not joining a European Soccer blog talking about a "playoff committee" to decide who is allowed to win their championship. 

Tier 1 teams arent going to agree to falling off into a lesser division ever.  Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, USC, Oregon, Washington, Florida State, Notre Dame, Clemson arent ever going to agree to something with only 100% downside. They arent hoping Northwestern gets a shot. That is not how any of this works. Every few weeks we have to discuss this. Soccer fans I get it but please let it die. 

Thank you for joining my Teb Talk.

I think the way to make relegation work is to make the divisions small to preserve rivalries, give every team access to the championship every year, and relegate/promote every 2 years based on performance.

So take your 20 teams, keep Rutgers, and set up 3x7-team divisions (Big 7, Middle 7, Little 7). 9 conference games means play 6 teams in your division and 3 rotating opponents (can be rivals). Have the Middle Champ and LIttle Champ play into the championship game. Every two years, championship game participants (max 4) are in the Big tier, and sort the rest by full league record. Michigan will play Sparty and OSU every year, no matter what, and those games count no matter what.

I like the idea in theory, but in practice it'll never happen. Know why? 

Money. 

While schools like Purdue, Northwestern and Indiana would jump at the chance to jump up to a higher league and make more money, do you think Michigan, OSU and USC are ever going to agree to a league where they can potentially get demoted and make less money? 

Again, I really like the idea in theory, but the top half of the conference would never, ever agree to it. 

UCLA would like a word with you.

So, Big 10 and Little 10?

I do think that the idea of having the top 10 teams playing a round robin is an obvious next step to maximize viewership. A 9-game round robin results in 45 games. Spread over 13-14 weeks and you have 3-4 games per week. That's one for Fox, one for NBC, one for CBS, and maybe one for BTN. That's also one for each of the main time slots each Saturday so that they don't compete.

They could also go with 5 divisions and take the top 2 from each division. The divisions being regional would allow lower-tier teams to play more rivalries and minimize travel. The top 2 teams of the lower-tier in each division could play the two teams in the upper division during relegation week, which would replace championship week.

Sparty belongs in Tier 3...all alone. 

I could see teams that are 7-3 or 6-4 tanking games the last 2 weeks to get an easier schedule the following season.  

That matchup should be a protected rivalry.

... with lots of ads for Arizona-grown alfalfa.

Would ESPN be willing to re-negotiate the ACC deal to keep FSU and Clemson in the fray? Seems like it'd be worth doing.

I do like a good Panini, especially a pesto chicken 

"Salary Cap."   A very interesting topic of conversation.   

Let's say the conferences get together and reach some kind of agreement on media revenue sharing.   I'm fine with NIL as how it was inteneded - and, I'm fine with media revenue sharing. 

I do believe any solution needs to address ALL student athletes - regardless of gender and sport (revenue / non revenue generating).   So - conferences - perhaps the entire NCAA could reach some kind of solution / guideline / rule about media revenue sharing.   This - could theoretically have some kind of a cap which everyone would need to agree to.   And as soon as the agreement is readhed - certain schools / conferences will begin lookin for a way to "get around" it. 

IMO, the real issue is - NIL.  What is to stop any individual / collective to offer an opportunity to a student athlete?   I believe the NIL Pandora's box cannot be closed.  And, NIL is where the difference is today.   The only way I can foresee it changing is - donors to NIL / Collectives will eventually get tired of seeing their donations go to kids driving around a campus in a Lamborghini (and, I'd heard that Georgia's QB - Carson Beck - just picked up a Lambo) - when the results on the field don't make them (the donor) happy enough.

I have no issue with players being able to build on their success - and commitment.  Caitlin Clark is a great example at Iowa.  I will always appreciatd Blake, JJ, and the Michigann teams of the last few years - and respect their approach to NIL.   Hopefully, the team attitude can be sustained.