In a 12 game season, this allows 6 conference games, 1 interconference game with each other conference, and 1 discretionary game against an FBS opponent/rival that doesn't make the cut to SPS (Semi-Professional Subdivision). This would allow for VT vs UVA, Mizzou vs Kansas, Georgia vs GT, BYU vs Utah. There really is no excuse for an $P$ team to play FCS or lower.

That makes only 42 teams in $P$. I wonder if the so-called "Academically elite" schools with smaller football fan bases wouldn't join together to form a new FBS conference. Is it time to resurrect the idea of the never realized Magnolia League? Possible membership:

UNC
GT
Baylor
TCU
Maryland
UVA
Vanderbilt
Duke
Wake Forest
Tulane
SMU
Rice

This would be a solid all-sports conference, albeit with an even further reduced emphasis on football. Similar schools left over from ACC and B1G in the north could form a similar league, call it the Tundra League:

Minnesota
Rutgers
Indiana
Pitt
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
Syracuse
BC
Cincinnati
UConn
Kansas

[Post edited by daveinop at 04/10/2022 08:36AM]

is willing to expand Lane to around 80K. If we are talking closer to 50 teams, then VT may have a shot to make the list. Assuming this group is only for power conference schools, then here are the likely candidates (by association) to make the 40 team list.

ACC (7): Clemson, FSU, UNC, Miami, NC State, Pitt, and VT
Big Ten (8): Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St, Nebraska, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, and Wisconsin
Big XII (4): BYU, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, and WVU
Independent (1): Notre Dame
Pac-12 (8): Arizona, Arizona St, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Utah, and Washington
SEC (13): Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Texas A&M

Even though I included VT on the list, I could see a scenario where VT and a few other schools could get bumped to make room for Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, Illinois, TCU, Baylor, Houston, UCF, Rutgers, or Missouri. I say that because it may depend on how they want to divide up the 40 schools. If they want to divide them into 4 divisions of 10 with each "conference" having 2 divisions, then the group may need to add more mid-western or western schools to balance out the divisions. As a result, eastern, central, or southeastern schools may be SOL (assuming they want to compete in this "league"). If they opt to go with 6 divisions, then the number could be increased to 42 or 48 teams. If they opt to go with 8 divisions, then 40 or 48 teams probably makes the most sense. At least it could open the door to expand the playoffs so that it resembles the NFL Playoffs format.

in the introductory (32 teams for example) breakoff league? That would give incentive for donations that it has never seen before. Maybe NIL money goes through the roof. Would this finally wake up the VT fans that have not donated to their potential?

For example, let's assume the group agrees to pay its student-athletes for all sports a "salary" of $50k per year. This decision could turn some fans off to the point where they decide to never donate to VT athletics again. While another group of fans may be indifferent to this decision. As a result, some may decide to start donate. While the rest continue with the status quo of either donating or not donating depending on what they did prior to the decision. Then the final group may support the decision and it motivates them to either start donating or start donating again. The other rules the group agrees upon could likely have a similar response/influence.

about 25th in attendance. And generally attendance is in decline around the country, even in the SEC. So I don't see expanding Lane as necessary for VT to make a 40 team league.

The minimum number could be 75,000 or 70,000 which is still more than Lane's current capacity. My point was that if the schools are going to create a football league, then they will probably be selective on which schools will be allow to join the league. Remember stadium capacity isn't something new within DI football. Currently if a school wishes to compete as a DI-FBS football program, then the most meet a minimum attendance requirement (I think 15,000 over 4 years) which impacts the size of the stadium. If the school fails to meet that requirement, then it will be forced to switch to DI-FCS.

attendance started with # 40 Arizona St. with an average attendance of 49,901.8. And that average was based on the previous 5 years. VT was number 24 with an average 5 year attendance of 60,989.6. Just information for reference if considering attendance as a factor for a 40 school breakaway. If we go to a 50 school breakaway, VT is even in better standing, as #50 was California at 43,457.0 for a five year average.
[Post edited by wwhokie1 at 04/13/2022 5:25PM]

If a college league was ever formed for football, then I don't believe attendance would be a deciding factor. I do think it would be 1 of several factors depending on how some other decisions go. It is even possible that a school has to meet A, B, C, D, and E minimum requirements in order to even be considered for the league. Size of the stadium could be the A requirement and actual attendance figures (not sales figures) could be the B requirement. The reason I used actual attendance figures is because a school could sell every ticket and still claim the game is "sold out" even though the actual attendance during the game may be closer to 50%. Even VT is guilty of playing this game.

Minimums for staffing ; training- student aupport include financing; number of sports …etc

If a program can do it with a 60k stadium so be it.. northwestern stanford uva can.. i think teams like vt just have to be creative. Howevef the state and national bond services have credit limits and vt is not going to use its entire credit capacity for athletics and not be able to finance other university efforts as new 5000 student comminity in blacksburg- funding for mew bldgs and new campus af falls church and rhe inmovation center and bidding demands for top notch professors

with a large fan base and national appeal to increase the value of the TV contracts. Majority of the DI private schools don't satisfy those requirements regardless of how much money they have in the bank. People wouldn't be talking about Northwestern football if they had not invested all that money into a state-of-the-art practice facility. The money a school invests in its facilities, support staff, etc. has no bearing on which game a person chooses to watch on TV.

to compete in the league and Lane doesn't meet that minimum requirement, then VT has 2 choices:

1. Expand Lane until it meets the new minimum requirement; or

2. Keep Lane at its current capacity and be content not participating in this new league.

And we can easily add to it. If there is a Super League with a schedule full of elite teams visiting, you bet we'll be expanding. As will others.
[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 04/09/2022 3:35PM]

leadership will give the green light on the expansion project particularly if the current demand for tickets doesn't support it. It is even possible that the current leadership may decide to use that money for other "more important" capital projects for whatever reason. Now if the fan base comes up with 100% of the capital to fund the project, then I don't see any reason for the current leadership not to give the green light to the expansion project.

One of the reasons I selected 80K as the benchmark for capacity is because I think the Super League will probably only have 16-20 teams in it. If it does have 40-50 teams, then it may not matter where VT ranks in capacity because the league may decide to balance out the representation for all the regions of the US. If it doesn't appear that VT will make the cut and the current ticket demand isn't there, then will the fan base still be motivated to raise the capital to fund the expansion project? It is even possible the fan base may not be motivated even if VT has a chance to make the cut because VT has to raise a lot of capital in a short period of time in order to keep its slot in the league.

Rennovation cassell —90-100 million - expansion to lame 250 million.. doubling of football budget to keep coaches and football staff and increases in student financial support

not provide a benefit unless we can actually increase attendance. More empty seats no matter how much we spend on them gives no return on investment, no improvement in program. Taking that money and spending it elsewhere, such as coaching, Cassell renovations etc... will actually give a return on investment. And unless the breakaway league is 30 or fewer schools, then VT would be a clear choice to participate. Even at 25-30 I would like our chances; 15-20 we get left out regardless of what we do.

...school kids throughout the state?

As for the price of admission, Miami has had a $99 season ticket package for decades, and they still can't fill a stadium. I know F$U fans who buy Miami season tickets the year they play there, and sell the rest. They probably aren't the only opponent fans who do this...

then they won't want to share the money with programs that don't really add any value to league.

[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 04/09/2022 9:57PM]

If it is 40-50 teams we absolutely will.

And if we are playing a top 40 team every week rather than Austin Peay, yeah, attendance will increase. Away fans too.
[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 04/09/2022 9:56PM]

find itself on the outside because of how the league decided to organize its divisions. If the league wants 4 divisions of 10 (East, Central, Midwest, and West), then teams on the East Coast could be left out so more geographically friendly teams could be added to Midwest or West divisions. It's a downside to having so many DI colleges/universities located east of the Mississippi River compared to the number west of the Mississippi River.

A also think geography will matter less moving forward as well. Doubt they take Wyoming over VT just because they are in the Mountain time zone.

as an example in any of my posts. Below I have listed 11 potential candidates for 10 slots in both divisions (if the league opted to go this route). Notice Wyoming isn't listed among the 22 schools.

Midwest Division: Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas A&M, Houston, Colorado, TCU, BYU, Utah, and Baylor.

West Division: UDub, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, San Diego St, UNLV, Boise St, Arizona, and Arizona St

Also, I wouldn't assume that anything is off the table at this point in time. It is possible that the schools are considering/exploring all options as they look to redefine things for the future.
[Post edited by VTHokie2000 at 04/12/2022 10:09PM]

Substitute San Diego State, UNLV or Boise for Wyoming then if you prefer. If these teams were valuable assets, they'd already be in the Pac-12 or the Big XII. Heck, the Big XII passed them over for Cincinnati, UCF and Houston.

I got Tech above all these in the pecking order. And while debatable, it is all the more reason to have a system of relegation and promotion.

assume the Pac-12 doesn't decide to expand to 14 or 16 teams at some point in time. Now that the Las Vegas Raiders have their stadium and I believe UNLV is scheduled to play a certain number of home games each year in it that may change how the Big XII and Pac-12 view UNLV going forward. Likewise, the perception of San Diego State could change once its new on campus stadium is built. Also, I wouldn't assume that the conferences will still exist in this new league.

reason to build in relegation and promotion now. If UNLV becomes tomorrow's Alabama, in short order, they will be in the Top Tier and never have to look back. They don't have to wait a decade for bean counters at Disney to figure it out.

MLS would already be doing it now. If anything, I would think the elite schools will want to keep this league exclusive in order to drive up its value. Otherwise, there is a risk that a school like JMU could end up crashing the party and potentially de-value the product while JMU collects that phat check. Plus, there is no guarantee that a promoted school will meet all the minimum requirements associated with the league. Beside, if the college football is truly going to include a promotion/relegation system, then it probably should include DI-FBS, DI-FCS, DII, and DIII schools. FWIW the English Football League System has 21 tiers.

Another reason the Big XII may be doing its expansion in phase is the conference is waiting to see if there are any changes to the rule. For example, if conferences no longer have to have divisions and play a round robin schedule (if a conference with more than 12 teams eliminates the divisions), then it gives the Big XII more on which schools to include on its target list. However, if the conferences with 12+ members still must divide up into 2 divisions and play a round robin division schedule or play a round robin conference schedule (if there are no divisions), then the target list may be much smaller even if the Big XII decides to incorporate rotating pods/quads.

Now what could be interesting to see play out is if the Pac-12 decides to add Boise State and UNLV to become the Pac-14 in an effort to try to block the Big XII from expanding into the Pac-12's territory. Boise State could be placed in the North Division and UNLV in the South Division to allow the Pac-14 to continue along without missing a beat. If that were to happen, the Big XII may decide to not expand west beyond BYU because Nevada and the remaining CA schools are not as desirable since UNLV is no longer an option. FWIW Boise State and Memphis appear to be the leading candidate if the Big XII implement Phase 2 of its expansion plan. At least what is written at the end of the article is giving people the impression the Big XII isn't done. If the Big XII expands to 14, then it may opt to implement Phase 3 especially if UNLV, San Diego St, maybe South Florida, etc. are still available.

And if "big changes" are coming to college football, maybe college football should go bold and be the trend setter. WRT to JMU, they would probably start off in the 4th or 5th tier. If they would ever make it to the 1st tier, it would take quite some time. And if they become good enough to win games against the elites, then why shouldn't they be able to stay? If they can't win games, they will be relegated back down. So again, the winning and losing takes care of the decision making, as it should be.

You bring up a good point about academics. But all that will need to be communicated before the league starts. But once the league starts and the schools are meeting the standards, then let the chips fall where they may.

Moving away from the promotion-relegation debate, you bring up Pac-12 and BigXII expansion. Maybe they should expand and maybe they shouldn't. I don't know. But I do know that adding teams without adding conference games dilutes the schedule. That's a big complaint about the ACC. I can't imagine that Oregon State would want fewer dates with USC so they can fit Boise on their schedule. And also, there is the payout per school. The reason the BigXII stayed at 10 is that it would be less of a payout per school if they added teams. Maybe the equation has changed, and now expansion is more profitable. I don't know.

to get promoted to the top tier. If JMU starts out in the 4th tier, then it would take a minimum of 3 years before JMU ended up in the 1st tier. Assuming JMU doesn't get relegated after the first year in the 1st tier, it is likely JMU will be hovering around the relegation zone (15th-17th in EPL). Most of the clubs at that level don't add any "value" to EPL's TV contract. Instead, the value is defined by the 7 big clubs plus the 3-4 clubs (i.e. West Ham, Newcastle, Leicester City, etc.) that consistently remain in EPL for multiple seasons and are typically in condition for a Top 10 finish most seasons. That same structure would likely happen in a college football league. Heck it is already happening now with the various conference contracts.

Who is this "they" that has to power to "bump" VT in favor of Arkansas, Colorado, etc? I suspect that you are thinking of ESPN. Well, I'm here to tell ya that it's time for ESPN to get the hell out of the kitchen. The schools own this content and the networks are only leasing it. The schools/conferences need to take back their rights from ESPN and simply offer a menu to order from. Why should ESPN have ANY say in these matters?
PS. The B1G ( a real conference) will bring 14 teams to any alignment they choose to be a part of. The ACC has their hands tied for now but they need to start acting like a real unified organization.

a combination of networks, college presidents, ADs, and other top executives who decide who is in and who is out. Also, I'm not sure if the networks are truly leasing the content or if they co-own the content. Regardless, I'm not sure the schools/conference can take back their content unless they are all willing to walk away from all that money on the table. The Pac-12 launched the P12N by itself and look how that turned out for the conference. It may sound good on a message board, but I'm not sure how practical it is in application.

I wouldn't assume that an entire conference will or won't make the cut because it may depend on what rules are agreed upon by the group. If it is decided that there should be a minimum stadium capacity in order to participate in this league, then that could eliminate schools like Minnesota, Northwestern, Indiana, Duke, Wazzou, Wake, Vandy, etc. because the schools decided they didn't want to expand their stadium to meet said minimum requirement. Likewise, if the group agrees upon a minimum stipend of $14,000.00 per athlete, then that could eliminate more schools like BC, Syracuse, Maryland, Illinois, Oregon State, Cal, Kansas, Texas Tech, etc. because they don't want to pay that amount to all their other athletes. It is even possible that conference, in the form we know it now, is really a thing of the past and this process will start the ball rolling so the conference form evolves into its next evolution. For example, a school could be a member of 1 conference for all the "revenue sports" (i.e. basketball, football, ice hockey, baseball, softball, etc.) and another conference for the remaining "non-revenue sports." The non-revenue conference may even be more regional based to the point you have power conference schools and non-power conference schools in the same conference (see example below).

Sic Semper Tyrannis Conference: UVA, VT, JMU, ODU, GMU, Richmond, VCU, VMI, W&M

The lesser programs? It would make it possible for ESPN to pay for only the most marketable units. How does that help the schools overall? In the ACC ESPN pays for four P5 programs in NC because the ACC keeps those schools in the fold. If we go with your "elites only" plan, UNC would make the cut and a weak "maybe" for Duke. The ACC is resigned, I think, to the eventual dispersal of the conference. You should not just concede that fact. It may be inevitable but the conference should take any steps necessary to see that all ACC schools have a safe landing space.
I see posts about the SEC dropping Vanderbilt or Missouri. They think it's sensible because ESPN has persuaded them that those schools are holding them back. The SEC actually thinks that they are "partners" with ESPN working toward a common goal. They haven't woken up to the reality that ESPN is leading them down the same path that suffocated the ACC.
The Alliance is one step toward putting the schools/conferences back in charge of college football.

It's simple economics. Would you rather split $100 million 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, or 20 ways?

It is indeed sad that the education aspect of big time college football is becoming even more of an afterthought. The NCAA model has proven itself totally incapable of dealing with the new order, i.e., the portal, NIL, etc.

Not sure how a new P5 organization would be set up, but giving a commissioner the power to enforce the rules would be a start.
[Post edited by Hokester at 04/09/2022 10:01AM]

Let those who continue to succeed stay in P5, and those who suck drop into the G-5. But the good G-5 teams can move into the P5 with their play.

One television contract for the entire P5 league so everyone is on level ground with their television contract.

Put one set of simple rules in place for everyone. Break a rule, get a warning. Break it again and you drop into the G5. You'll have to play your way back into the P5.

The big question here is "who is in and who is out?" when the NWO cometh. And there is going to be a war over it.

I think if there is a relegation and promotion system set up, it will get more support knowing the line between the IN and the OUT is not forever, nor should it be. For a quality team just below the line, it might only mean one year of being out of the big time. Win your way in--it should be the American Way.

65K minimum to start, eventually requiring 70-75K

What good is a large stadium if most of it is empty? Butts in seats = Eyes on TVs = $$$ for the schools and networks

I think some schools with slightly smaller on campus stadiums should get in over them.

But I hear what you are saying. Maybe we should factor in recent attendance as well.

VT has one of the most expensive tickets in the ACC, where Miami has the cheapest. If attendance starts to go down at VT, guess we would have to lower prices to increase attendance, or do something else to increase attendance, such as give away door prizes like a new maroon and orange Corvette? (hint, hint...lol)

Some people would say 40 is too many. Others would say 50 isn't enough.

What would be the criteria to get in? Who would determine the criteria?

I've said it before, but I'd love to see a system of relegation and promotion. It would solve at least this question and many more moving forward. If you think you deserve to be in the top tier? Prove it. If you think you deserve to stay in the top tier? Show us.

It will a way of separating the wheat from the chaff more easily and equitably than a 10,000 page document of regulations. And it would put the drama and excitement on the field where it belongs. More merit, less posturing.

I.e. ESPN wants to sell $X worth of advertising airtime, but X is a product of the number and quality of the games (Ohio State vs Michigan is presumably worth more than Indiana vs Purdue). However, even games like the latter aren't worthless as advertising vehicles. This will probably mean that any future Divison 1-A+ or 1-S or whatever you want to call it for football isn't going to be optimized strictly for competitiveness.

What I mean by that is, right now, as college football is currently structured, there's really only a pool of about 10-15 teams who have any believable shot at competing for a national title at any point between now and the next 5 years. A hyper-competitive league would just take those teams, and every league game they played would be very compelling for the viewer (even the SEC still has clunkers like Alabama-Vanderbilt). But they won't play enough games for ESPN to hit their price target, they need more content than just 6-8 games per week. So they need to add a bunch more teams as filler, basically. Those teams, as of today, will never compete for a league/national title and will mostly never even win their conference title, they'll just have to hope for a winning record each year and maybe score an upset once in a while.

I kept talking about how things currently are, because it would be easy to create a far more well-rounded and competitive league, with more than just 10-15 teams, by instituting a couple simple (but hard-to-swallow for some people) changes. #1, get rid of scholarships, and thus the scholarship limit, which is an imperfect proxy for salary cap, and just pay players directly. No games of "you should come to Texas because we have many fans who love giving lucrative NIL deals to current Texas players, wink wink," programs just negotiate a salary based on their desire/need for a certain player. Let the players form a union (ideal) or have them all be a bunch of individual 1099s (still better than what we currently have). #2, institute program-wide salary cap. Do you want to pay big money for an elite coaching staff and less on the players, or do you spend it all on the players and just get an unremarkable coach? It'd be program's discretion, but it's all against the same cap space. Finally, #3 directly follows, how do you determine the cap for the league? Suppose ESPN says that the right number of teams is 40, maybe it's 4 conferences of 10 teams, whatever. Take that 40th-best program and use them as the benchmark, some kind of rolling average of the last 5 years of what they've spent on football, you can even let debt service payments against the stadium count for it. If you think that indexing the cap against the worst team is way too fair, then have the cap be the median spending (NOT the average) of your entire 40 team league (my guess is this would put it somewhere down in the 25-30 range).

Doing something like this immediately cripples the dynamic of what's been allowed to happen over the years (and has become greatly pronounced over the last 10-20), where the top programs have no limit on what they can spend, which over time increases the functional gap between them and the rest of the teams in their conference, since they naturally accumulate the best coaches, best players, best facilities, etc. The Alabamas and Ohio States would absolutely hate such a system, and scream and howl and cry huge crocodile tears of anguish, which is how you know it would work to create competitive parity.

So let's stick with 12 for the sake of our discussion.

Make a Western Division (13 teams) and Eastern Division (13 teams). Everyone plays 12 games in their division. Winner of the divisions meets in the national championship game. That's 12 high-quality games per week for ESPN across all time zones. Moreover, if promotion was available for Tier 2, those games would be of great interest to viewers as well. Ditto in reverse for relegation. No one might care to watch two teams with terrible records late in the season, but if the loser was going to be relegated, plenty more would watch.

I am not satisfied with ESPN picking permanent winners and losers here. So if 40 teams are picked, how does #41 ever get their chance for the big time? If you build relegation and promotion in, it just makes so much more sense in dollars, fairness and competition.

Also, the salary cap idea that you bring up is interesting. But I am afraid we will run into the same problem as we have now. Some people will want to spend MORE and will find ways to do it. So if this cheating isn't being stopped now, I don't see it being stopped in the future. Although, if found out, they should be punished in real time in the standings.

The best 1-AA programs can maybe tread water in 1-A but they're never in serious contention to win something. The worst 1-A would probably be better served competing in 1-AA but they often can't bring themselves to let go of that slightly higher revenue stream (Idaho and UConn come to mind as programs that made the round trip from AA to A and back to AA).

Relegation could help provide some structure around turnover from a higher to a lower league, although, for college football, I don't think I would do it on a year-by-year basis. The fact that there's typically a large change in performance between when a guy has been in the program for 1-2 years versus 3-4 leads to a lot of variance in outcomes for many teams. I would probably look at doing it on like a rolling basis of performance, last 3/5/whatever years. It would probably end up reducing some of the viewer intrigue of those types of "win or else you get relegated" matchups, but it would help make sure you only punish the programs that are bad, and aren't getting any better anytime soon.

I know Idaho made the decision a few years ago, but I believe UConn is determined to remain a DI-FBS program even if it has to remain an Independent.

back to DI-FCS and re-join the CAA. However, I don't think they will do that for various reasons. It is a shame there isn't any interest to form an 11th DI-FBS conference because a conference with UConn, UMass, Army, Navy, Temple, Buffalo, Ohio, Marshall, JMU, and ODU could end up being a highly competitive G6 conference. It probably won't be the strongest G6 conference, but should be stronger than C-USA and maybe even the MAC. Assuming Army and Navy wanted to remain the Patriot League for all other sports, it could exist as an all sports conference assuming it could lure a few schools away from the Atlantic 10.

I get why UConn opted to leave the AAC to rejoin the Big East for all other sports. However, I'm not sure UConn's situation will be any better given that it is unlikely the Big East will be able to recapture the magic it had before the ACC raided it. Plus, I'm not sure how long people will continue to view the Big East as a power conference in basketball (assuming they still do). It seems to me that if UConn wants to improve its situation, then it needs to be a member of a conference for all sports.

Clubs that fluxgate between the top two flights. For example, Fulham is currently at the top of flight 2. They are probably better than the bottom five clubs in flight 1 this year. They will be promoted at the end of the season. I think they spent just one year in flight 2 after getting relegated the year before. They and some other clubs like Norwich City (who will get relegated out of flight 1 this year) are up and down regularly. It's built in.

I hear what you are saying about doing it every 3-5 years, but I think doing it every year makes it more exciting. If a team has a fluke bad year in college football and gets relegated, they can prove it was a fluke and easily bounce back the next year. It will also help tier 2 by having some big name programs visit for a year.

will want to ensure they play the other teams in the "league" home and away before teams are promoted/relegated. That is how the various European pro soccer leagues are able to implement the promotion/relegation system. If college football is only going to play an opponent 1 time per season, then at a minimum the promotion/relegation would have to wait to happen after the second season. If the promotion/relegation must be done every year, then you have 2 options:

1. Reduce each league/conference to 6-7 teams each so teams can play everyone home and away in the same regular season for 10 or 12 games; or

2. Extend the regular season so teams play double the number of games depending on how many teams are in each league/conference. If each league/conference has 10 teams, then the regular season would be 18 games.

as problematic when everyone is playing 12 stud teams. For example, if Clemson, Georgia and Alabama are all in the Eastern region, they might get one at home and one on the road. That's just the breaks as to who it is. And whether or not you have Bama at home or away shouldn't be the difference in getting relegated unless you are losing 9-11 other games.

Having it every year keeps more teams in the top flight and makes each year interesting and new.
[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 04/09/2022 10:03PM]

is VT schedule one year.

Home: UVA, GT, UMD, Rutgers, NC State, and Pitt
Away: Clemson, FSU, Penn St, Tenn, Miami, and UNC

You don't think VT leadership will want to make sure VT got to play the away teams at home before being relegated to a lower tier?

Which makes it easier to not get relegated.

Let's say they win all the home games and lose all of the road games. They won't be relegated.

And as a general principle, all teams in the tier should be presumed equal.

missing here. Even all the European soccer leagues acknowledge the fact that some teams carry more value than others.

EPL
More Valuable: ManU, Man City, Chelsea, Spurs, Arsensal, Liverpool, Everton, and maybe West Ham

Less Valuable: Burnley, Wolves, Brentford, Watford, Norwich, Leeds United, Aston Villa, etc.

Bundesliga
More Valuable: Bayern, Dortmund, Leverkusen, Monchenglabach, maybe Hoffenheim, and maybe Wolfsburg

Less Valuable: Furth, Hertha Berlin, Arminia, Bochum, Union Berlin, Stuttgart, etc.

La Liga
More Valuable: Real Madrid, Barcelona, Atletico Madrid, Sevilla, Real Sociedad, Villareal, and Athletic Club

Less Valuable: Alaves, Levante, Granada, Elche, Getafe, Cadiz, Celta Vigo, etc.

Serie A
More Valuable: Inter, Milan, Roma, Napoli, Juventus, Lazio, and maybe Atalanta

Less Valuable: Torino, Empoli, Spezia, Genoa, Sassuolo, Verona, etc.

Ligue 1
More Valuable: PSG, Marseille, Nice, Monaco, and Lyon

Less Valuable: Troyes, Clermont Foot, Lorient, Bordeaux, Metz, Angers, etc.

A college football league would be no different. IIWII

of 12 elite teams--rather than 4 elite teams, 4 sub par teams, and 4 cupcakes--it evens itself out.

The only thing where this might be an issue is if there are two dominate teams in the East (let's say Alabama and Georgia). And the winner is the East champion to play in the national championship game against the West champion. That might be an issue. But it is hardly a deal breaker. And the equation would be reversed the following year since obviously neither would be getting relegated.

in the scenario I presented in an earlier post. If VT ended up being relegated at the end of the season, then you would be okay with the fact that you didn't have an opportunity to see VT play the away opponents at home before being relegated? Even if VT didn't get relegated, there is no guarantee that VT would play this year's away schedule at home next season. It is possible that VT could end up playing some of those same opponents away again next season for various reasons. Likewise, if VT is relegated and then promoted the following year, there is no guarantee that VT would play any of those away opponents at home.

This issue is why a every European league has their schedule structured so they play every other team in the league home and away at least 1 time and maybe even twice if the league is small enough. While the Scottish Premier League (SPL) does things slightly different. The SPL has each team play the other teams in the league 3 times for 33 games. While the remaining 5 games are determined after the 12 team league is divided up into 2 groups of 6. I'm not sure how the league determines who the home team is for each of the 5 remaining games. As far as I can tell, it is the only European league to use this format.

A) "If VT ended up being relegated at the end of the season, then you would be okay with the fact that you didn't have an opportunity to see VT play the away opponents at home before being relegated?"

Absolutely no problem with it. I don't know if you realize how fully loaded the schedule would be. Let me give you an example. Let's say VT is in the Top Eastern Tier with these other 12 teams:

Michigan
Penn State
Ohio State
Tennessee
Alabama
Georgia
Florida
Auburn
Clemson
Florida State
South Carolina
Notre Dame

Now let's say Florida State and South Carolina get relegated. And they are replaced by newly promoted Michigan State and North Carolina. Does that dramatically change the schedule? No. Also, to one of your earlier points about balance in the schedule. You could take these 12 teams and break them down any way you want--or randomly--home and away. It will be an awesome and relatively balance schedule no matter how you slice it.

B) "Even if VT didn't get relegated, there is no guarantee that VT would play this year's away schedule at home next season"

Yes, there would be. A promoted team would simply pick up the following year's schedule of a relegated team. So, if VT is not relegated the flipped schedule for the following year stays in tact. In the example above, North Carolina would just take over the schedule of South Carolina.

C) "This issue is why a every European league has their schedule structured so they play every other team in the league home and away"

In this regard, we can't compare the two. Professional soccer lasts about 9 months. And they can play multiple games in a week. College football can't do this. So College Football would have three choices:
(1) Play home and home each year with fewer teams in the elite tier. This is less desirable IMO
(2) Do relegation and promotion every OTHER year. This is less desirable IMO
(3) Do relegation and promotion EVERY year even if you don't see every team home and home. While imperfect, this is far better than the other two IMO.

I see your point. I just don't think it outweighs the upside of the opposing view.

Bottom line: be good enough not to get relegated. 4-8 would definitely be good enough.




[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 04/13/2022 12:07AM]

question because you changed the scenario. Below is the only scenario your A) answer should be addressing.

Home: UVA, GT, UMD, Rutgers, NC State, and Pitt
Away: Clemson, FSU, Penn St, Tenn, Miami, and UNC

Also, VT's experience in the Big East does support the idea that my scenario above isn't that far fetch after all. Specifically I'm referring to the common belief among Hokie fans that it took VT and Syracuse joining the ACC so VT can finally play a home men's basketball game against Syracuse.

B) There is no guarantee that the promoted team will simply pick up a relegated teams schedule. The league may prefer to use a schedule generator every year to change the order in which the games are played in and whether teams play the newly promoted teams home or away. Based on VT's Big East experience, it is even possible games against teams remaining in the league are impacted too for financially reasons. At least I wouldn't assume that all the participating schools place the interest of the league ahead of the own interests like you see with most of the pro leagues in the US.
[Post edited by VTHokie2000 at 04/13/2022 09:48AM]

A. I addressed it. If that's the schedule, that's the schedule. So what. And the home and home thing is irrelevant. You might think it's a big deal. But it's not to me. And if you have relegation and promotion every year, that's the trade off. Deal with it. I get you don't want relegation and promotion every year, but I'm not out to convince you. If the relegation threshold is two and a team isn't relegated or promoted, they will have 10 of 12 teams on their previous schedule at the opposite venue the following year. That's the deal.
B. Of course there is no guarantee. I'm talking about what I would do, not what they will do. My solution is simple and perpetual. Using a schedule generator opens itself to problems. But if they use it, so be it. And if they use it, the schedule won't be balanced the way you want it to be balanced anyway.

No need to take it any further. I've said what I have to say on this topic.

I have taken. In fact, the reason I took that position is because I believe this issue will matter more to some schools when you start to factor in the impact the schedule will have on ticket sales. If VT played both schedules at home, then I suspect you will see the demand for tickets be higher for the teams on the "Away" list than the "Home" list.

Sorry, Synaesthesia (yeah I had to look it up) but if you put a cap on what the school can spend, then they will simply pay the coaches $1 each and the boosters will pay them $20 million to do a weekly talk on TV/radio/podcast. The players will be loose cannons no matter what. It's a money chase; get used to it. That's why conference membership must be a long-duration leap of faith, an actual bond vs a temporary business arrangement. Do we have that in The ACC? Would you say that they have it in The SEC, B1G?
My biggest objection to your idea is that you think ESPN should have anything to do with the structure or regulation of these matters. They are Public Enemy No. 1 in my eyes when it comes to college football operating in its own interests. They have crippled the ACC by (pick one) persuading/manipulating/bribing John Swofford into a long-term media contract and adding members that the conference would otherwise never have added. But, hey, it works for ESPN. And when it becomes opportune for ESPN to relocate some of these schools they will set about doing it. Stay tuned and watch.
My vision is a for-profit business, owned by the member schools and operated by the next generation of Jim Delany's (College Athletics Alliance?) . There are currently around 360 Division I schools in the NCAA. I think they could all thrive in the CAA. They would have the opportunity to reconfigure themselves into conferences without the interference of ESPN. Imagine this: Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech. Look familiar? Would that be a great conference? There need not be a ranking system akin to P5, G5, FCS. The conferences would eventually settle into a pecking order, probably based on their attractiveness to media companies.
NIL and pay for play will be a grimy business which could be handled best by this company centrally rather than by hundreds of different offices at the schools, a central point for scheduling games, travel, officials and officiating standards, etc.
Media companies, especially ESPN, would have their role limited to bidding for content from the conferences, as they are, rather than rearranging the schools to their liking. Negotiating media deals could be outsourced to the CAA professionals and remove that burden from the conferences. With an organization this large, is it out of the question that they might form a member-owned TV network to broadcast their own content along with high school games and sports news, recruiting profiles, etc. The NCAA disallowed High School coverage by the Longhorn Network, but the NCAA would be out of the picture.
Apply your imagination to the endless lines of business that could be taken-up by a profit-driven "Alliance."

it is a money chase by all involved and ESPN is providing the money - IF they get a say in how it is run.

Pretty much what anyone buying something does either directly or indirectly through their purchase choice.

interest of the sport. Some schools have been playing this sport since the 19th century. It's as if they have no regard for what made the sport great. ESPN is concerned with near term profits, not the longevity of the game. Sure, they'll pay lip service to it. But their actions are don't match up.

Granted, these are typically sports with a players' union (one of the reasons I said that was better than a bunch of independent contractors), but I think it would be unreasonable to expect that cap space would get evaded with all sorts of unnaturally small contracts when it's not the norm in professional sports. I did leave off an item #4, because I think there'd be more opposition to it, but a draft replacing the typical recruiting process would also help. More issues to work through, though; who's eligible, what if they don't join the draft, do you also have free agency, etc.

In an ideal world, should ESPN (take this to be shorthand for all media entities) have as much of a say as they do? Probably not, but if I started typing out all of the deltas between the world as it is and the world as I think it should be, I'd be typing for days. Ultimately, ESPN is the single biggest source of money for college sports. Donations, sales of tickets and merchandise, all this is overshadowed by the volume of ESPN money. Even my hypothetical league scenario is not so idealized as to expect that the league or its constituent programs would have the fortitude to walk away from that money, at any moment, unless they got to fully dictate terms to ESPN.

Given the history of the NCAA as an overarching governing body, I would be somewhat skeptical that a Neo-CAA, now both an intermediary and allocator of that same ESPN money, would carry this out in a manner free of corruption or influence peddled alongside that money. It would probably depend a lot on its structure and governance. E.g., if Neo-CAA was basically just the ACC-Big10-PAC12, if each conference had some measure of veto power (but not unrestricted), it could help provide a buffer against changes peddled by outside influence.

So much stuff needs to be worked out and the NCAA is absolutely, positively, without a doubt unable to lead. Therefore, a new system is coming. I hope it is 65-80 teams, but who knows how that is decided. Many will drop out all together (I believe).

[Post edited by goldendomer at 04/09/2022 12:46AM]

The ACC and Big 12 will try to protect every member. We already have 69 Power 5 schools. Some schools will have to make a major decision to either remain in the P-5 or drop down to G-5. I honestly can't see any P-5 school (including Wake, Vandy, BC, ...) wanting to move down a division. UCF, Cincinnati, BYU and Houston made the decision that they want to play at the highest level. It'll be interesting to see what other G-5 schools want to make a commitment to play at the highest level. You're seeing FCS schools like JMU, Liberty, Appalachian State, Coastal Carolina, Sam Houston State, Texas State, Jacksonville State and others make the move to G-5.

Dabo Swinney's idea seems to be the most popular but that would eliminate either the ACC or Big-12 or both. 40-50 would be bad news for Dabo's ACC, but he cares more about Clemson's future than the ACC's. Five of the original ACC schools have been associated with Wake Forest since 1953-1954. Will they continue to protect smaller P-5 schools like Wake, or will everyone be on their own?

I'm hoping that there will be 70-80 Power 5 schools and that all five conferences will survive. I think that that would be better for college football. Division 1 college football does need another division. FCS, G-5, and P-5 makes sense. I'd like to see a few schools move so they can be located in their geographic footprint (ie: WVU).

UT and OU completely blew that out of the water. Dabo knows it. Unless there is a complete restructuring, the BigXII is second class status and the ACC is too.

I'd love to go back to the days when there were smaller conferences and they were relatively even: SWC, ACC, SEC, Pac10, Big 8, Big Ten, Eastern Independents/Big East. But that is just a dream now, sadly.

All 7 conferences won a national title.

All conferences had a bell cow or two to anchor the conference, but the competition was solid from top to bottom.

The SWC had Texas, Arkansas, A&M
Big 8 had Oklahoma and Nebraska
SEC had Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee et. al.
Eastern independents had Penn State, Miami. ND
ACC had Clemson (and later FSU).
Big Ten had Ohio State and Michigan.
Pac 10 had USC and Washington.

[Post edited by Maroon Baboon at 04/09/2022 11:41PM]

looking more like the P2 with each having 24.

The SEC will be with ESPN, but will the B1G stay with Fox and even expand with them?

Is it coincidental thaf so many vt coaches- especially football: is penn state focused on heavy recruiting dmv??? Is vt leaning big 10 ??

Just look through the list of peer institutions for VT that SCHEV approved. Even after a decade of athletic conference realignment, there's still twice as many Big 10 peers as SEC. In fact it's only because of realignment that it's only twice as many--Florida is the only charter member of the SEC to be on that list, but most of the original Big 10 is there.

The ACC is the most natural home for both VT athletics and academics, and while many VT football fans would pout and whine about it, the Big 10 is the next most natural for VT as a whole, and it's honestly not even a close comparison.

By the way, astute readers will note how much of that list is covered by the ACC-Big 10-PAC 12 alliance. Ideas like that alliance don't just get drawn up in a slapdash panic, there's good reasons why it's those 3 conferences, and only those 3. They didn't leave out the Big 12 or the AAC or whomever on accident.
[Post edited by Synaesthesia at 04/09/2022 2:33PM]

That's the road map.

I agree, the PERFECT fit for VT is stay in the ACC, as long as we can. Perfect blend.